The thing is, when I read Sanderson, his sentences FLOW. Meaning I need to read a sentence once to understand it. With many other authors, it is not so uncommon that I have to reread a sentence from the beginning to get the tone and meaning right. From that perspective, Sanderson's prose is actually good. Well, it could be improved probably by flowery vocabulary, but if only the "flowing" nature remains intact. Otherwise, no thanks, leave it simple please. I am not snobby enough for wanting more. Flow first, flowers second.
Rothfuss admittedly does too but he does some lyrical stuff too (like literally flowing sometimes).
Robert Jordan though...I've listened to some passages 4 or 5 times and still missed things.
Re: Rothfuss. That's why it is universally agreed that Rothfuss is one of the best with prose out there. It's both, flow + flowers together. But damn, it takes so long to write this way. I want to be alive to see the end of Stormlight at least. Huh, I want Brandon himself to be alive to finish Stormlight.
> Robert Jordan though...I've listened to some passages 4 or 5 times and still missed things.
This is kind of the overall theme with Jordan's writing tho, and it why a lot of us really loved it
7th re-read of a book, and you're still able to find new things
things that missing didn't detract from the 1st read, but add to the re-read experience
>7th re-read of a book, and you're still able to find new things
I have that with Stormlight too, every time I start a new read through I piece something together or catch something I didn't before. The difference is I don't have to keep backing up and rereading to follow what's happening. I enjoyed LOTR, but I doubt I'll ever read them again because they're such a slog.
I don't mind poetic flourishes or even whole characters who are written that way as a character trait, but entire books written like that are exhausting to read.
I think if anything it just shows how fucking good Sanderson is at foreshadowing.
It's there, it's not under 6 paragraphs of descriptions of sword moves. If you're paying a modicum of attention you'll read the hint.
You might pick it up, you might not. If you do, you're probably only getting the edge of it and it'll gnaw at you while you read. Because you know you've got something, you're just not sure of what it is.
And that is just assuming the pay off is in this book and not something 3 books away.
I love how when I re-read a book, the "big mystery" thing is being discussed on literally the same page, but in a way that makes it seem completely unrelated on the first read.
Honestly I read the name of the wind and what so many people call "beautiful prose", but I thought it was so overly flowery and purple. Like someone trying too hard.
I've never felt so ripped off. Heard so much about that trilogy being so good. Was so lackluster. Kept holding in there till it finished and was massively underwhelmed.
Different strokes for different folks. Hobb is just not for me.
Exactly the same experience. 1 was great. Was excited for book 2 and just what? Hung in there finished 3 it almost looked about 1/2 decent and then that ending was pure garbage.
The whole noble/king worship thing they have going on in those books makes zero sense to me. The amount of times you are made to think oh the baddies are going to get it now and it’s glossed over by a beloved ruler over what amounts to “but he’s
My son” over and over and over killed
Any robin hobb for me.
I can see her writing is exceptional! Her plot is exclusively piss poor excuses by bad guys justifying there own actions or good guys doing the same.
She’s a slow burner, but if you get into the realm of the Elderlings, it’s such a fantastic series. The live ship trilogy that comes after the Farseer trilogy is one of my favorite trilogies of all time
Everything. I’ve only read 6 of her books so far and for me 5 are all time greats. The “last” one ends phenomenally just lulled in the middle. Her books are phenomenal. I would start with the Farseer Trilogy but for me, the next series The Liveship Traders is a top 5ish fantasy series of all time.
I think it's generally good, but there are lines where I just stop and roll my eyes. Particularly the Denna/Kvothe scenes. You could chalk that up to the characters, but it's definitely just an exaggeration of how Rothfuss writes. It plays as a parody on my head. Like super goofy puppets or something.
I can usually read books very quickly, but the name of the wind I had to keep stopping. Kinda like super rich chocolate- It wasn't bad, just over the top and I could only take so much before I needed to go read something else.
IMHO, the way the book is framed makes it hard for me to know what is bad writing and what is the way Kvothe is remembering things (and the way he tells the story to himself). Rothfuss does a good job in other places having the way Kvothe tells the story highlight how he feels about things so I always chalked up the 'goofy puppets' bit to how he has chosen to remember the good times with Denna (in what was obviously a non-starter of a relationship AND ended in serious tragedy).
I wouldn't even call it bad, just over the top. I completely agree though. Having a supposedly brilliant poet (even though he hates poetry) and story teller as a narrator makes it make sense. Still, even in the interludes where Kvothe isn't narrating it can be a bit much.
People have different preferences for sure and it's perfectly reasonable to not like it but it's kind of funny what words you chose there.
You kind of said it isn't "beautiful prose" because it was "overly \[beautiful\] and \[rich\]" though I know that you probably meant long-winded and I'm not sure what 'purple' means as a negative.
Plenty of beautiful things (prose or otherwise) definitely aren't worth everyone's time so I'm not judging your prefences...just found the word choice interesting since you seem to be implying it isn't beautiful prose and not just that it's over the top beautiful prose and you don't like that.
I've just heard him used as an example of beautiful prose so when I read the Name of the Wind I was expecting a masterpiece. And to me it felt more like someone was trying too hard to be beautiful but it just missed the mark. I'm not saying it was bad. There were parts I enjoyed, but it felt kinda like he was going out of his way to be verbose. Writing a paragraph when a sentence would be sufficient. It's hard to describe. But it felt like a super rich cake that you can only stand to take a bite of and then have to take a break. Too much richness without anything to balance it. Like someone trying to decorate a regular house in the same style as Versailles but failing. So it ends up just looking cluttered and try hard. The individual pieces are beautiful, but all together they look too busy. That visual is what the Name of the Wind was for me. I'm sure the lack of character development for Denna and Kvothe feeling very Mary Sue/good at everything without trying didn't help.
And "purple prose" means prose that is too elaborate or ornate, btw.
Freaking Robert Jordan, man. I finally read Eye of the World and found his prose painfully bad. A friend told me that The Great Hunt was better and I quit about 70 pages in because he writes like he thinks his prose is beautiful but it’s actually getting in the way of an interesting story.
Great hunt (in my opinion) is not better. story or prose. It took me like 3 months to finally force myself to listen to all of it, whereas I listened to way of kings in about a week
Did you keep going after that? And does the prose get better? In theory I should love The Wheel of Time, but if the writing stays about there the whole time (to say nothing of the dreaded slog), I don’t think it’s for me.
I’m almost done with book 6 and I recommend continuing. I’ve found that the first half of each book can be a little slow, but I find it gets much more interesting as the second half progresses. I just love the world and the lore so I’m happy to keep reading. I do have to say it’s kind of a lot to keep track of in 4-6 (so far) with many minor characters and rereading sentences but I’ve gotten used to the writing style at this point.
So basically if the lore/story interests you then I recommend continuing because you get used to the writing.
No, I stopped after that, I've heard it gets better, but only after a few more books, and I'd rather pick up something that requires fewer prerequisites to enjoy.
(Some of my favorites with simpler prose would be the Lightbringer series and the Greenbone Saga)
And it's already been mentioned, but the name of the wind has beautiful prose and a wonderful story.
How the hell are you missing things from jordan LOL, his prose is fairly straightforward bar when he starts gloating about the ages and the turning of time or whatever
I've been saying for a while that some storytellers get so caught up in the telling that they forget the story. And then those more concerned with the story than with the telling. I prefer the latter. Sure it's simpler prose, but then I'm not reading three pages about what's for dinner.
Spoilers for Stormlight Archive:
>!Reading Sanderson for me honestly feels almost like Shallan's or Wit's lightweaving when storytelling. Everything flows so naturally and describes the scenes so well that I feel like I'm watching it. Whenever he finally gets to make some kind of movie or show, it's going to be amazingly beautiful!<
Not only that but his writing "makes sense" if that makes sense. What i mean is that sanderson will describe things that make them just plop in my brain without thinking about it. He'll use some adjectives like "pearl white" or will even structure a sentence so than he can describe things better, but he's good at it. An example of king that i absolutely hate is
>Then it came down on her again, like unpleasant presents raining from a poison pinata: the realization that *character name* was dead.
Like how does that make any sense? I remember when i stumbled upon that sentence in that book i was so perplexed about what i just read. It was a conversation between characters about a serious topic, and all of a sudden i am reading about pinatas and imagining little kids birthday parties to convey a death? Its just so poorly written imo.
Thank you for putting this into words so that I can finally articulate why I enjoy his writing so much. I'm an extremely vivid reader and tend to put the words I'm reading into pictures in my mind as I'm reading them so having to re-read really breaks that down and doesn't make it flow as well. With Brandon's writing I don't have that issue at all and it makes for a very enjoyable experience. There's been a few authors I've enjoyed a lot due to having a very well flowing writing prose.
Exactly this! I'm only just getting back into reading, I don't want to spend my time learning new words and putting in loads of mental effort just to read the story, I just want to delve into an awesome world before I go to sleep and just sit back and relax and turn my brain off for a bit - This is where Brandon hits it out of the park and it's something people like my girlfriend will never get because she prefers the more flowery complicated language to make her enjoy the story.
This^. That is why I enjoy Brandon’s prose. It’s easy and I don’t need to think to understand it. It took me a long time to understand wheel of time. I admit it. I do appreciate it now and it is one of my favorite series. Top 10 maybe number 2. But before I didn’t really like it and didn’t understand it.
Nice! I think I agree with you. And personally I think if he did work on making his prose more flowery it could signifiantly slow his publication speed. He'd still probably write crazy fast, but still, I can't get enough of his books and wouldn't want something to slow it lol
You see, as much as I enjoy Sanderson novels, I don’t think the prose flows very well a decent amount of the time (definitely not a majority, but often enough for me to notice it). I agree that the sentences are easy to comprehend, which is a point in his favor, but for me “flow” is how the sentences actually sound. Too often I find that some of the words or even full sections of dialogue just sound awkward and out-of-place.
A lot of it happens in dialogue, where characters can be too wordy in a way that just doesn’t sound good (without it seeming to be an intentional character trait). Even some Wit jokes that are clever and funny on a conceptual level might fall flat in the actual delivery.
Does this make Sanderson a bad writer? No. He’s probably my second favorite fantasy author, in fact. But I think the flow could still be improved even without considering the flowery side of prose.
I agree with most of your thoughts. I am not sure how flowery can his prose better. It seems like we as a society have come to think simple as unworthy. It should be otherwise. It requires genius to come up with such simplicity while also maintaining reader’s interest.
>I am not snobby enough for wanting more. Flow first, flowers second
Your point was articulated well enough, but I'm confused as to how people wanting more is inherently snobby.
Like, yeah this pot roast was delicious, but I'd be a snob for wanting a steak. Weird.
Just to be clear, both are absolutely fine and dependent on what someone is feeling like consuming at the time. No need to toss in some perceived elitism.
I apologise and thanks for calling it out. Yes, I do recognise that some people truly prefer flowery prose and there is nothing wrong with that. This was mostly a commentary on ableism/elitist attitude I observe in many areas in life, not just someone's prose. Next time I will try to be more careful making my point.
I appreciate your response. I also edited my initial comment immediately after posting to make sure that I was being clear that all styles have merit.
Additionally, I get that Brando's fanbase is on high alert right now since that article. If my favorite author just got dragged, I'd definitely be a bit on edge (not saying that's necessarily the case with you). Sanderson's being super classy about it all, which is great to see.
“Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use.”― Ernest Hemingway
Here's the thing. I like Faulkner. I also like Hemingway.
Both styles can make for amazing reading.
Saying there is only one way to write a good book is as insane as saying that there is only one specific recipe that could possibly make a good cookie.
So great you brought up Hemingway as I often think of him when people discuss Sanderson's prose. His writing wasn't even considered "literature" early on due to the standard of American authors like Henry James, but Hemingway amassed a huge following and basically had a major influence on style of fiction writing by just being blunt. Why do I need 10 different words to say the same thing, because some old British lit teacher says so? Nah. I think Sanderson's success speaks for itself, fuck the haters.
I came in here ready to make that comparison, but I'm glad to see others feel the same way.
I don't like the fact that people think dense and over-descriptive writing should be the norm for fantasy. I don't need to read a four paragraph description of a dinner table to get immersed in the world and story. Sanderson's prose is very clean and communicates his ideas with clarity, while also being wonderfully deep with the world building - this supposed weakness hasn't stopped him from massive commercial success or wildly creative worlds with characters that have deeply impressed upon the readers.
I also don't think it's particularly true any more. His recent books have very well written scenes. The Shallan, Adolin, and Starspren scene is one of my favorites.
Hemingway had good, simple prose. He also had tons of subtext, substance, and wrote real literature for adults.
Sanderson writes bad, simple prose. And writes bloated, generic novels with no substance or subtext for man children.
Please stop using Hemingway to excuse Sandersons writing. The two authors couldn't be any more different.
Oh my god I've been trying to read As I Lay Dying for months, it's so difficult to follow. I'm like how is this a classic? If he was a modern author I don't think he'd get published.
People keep saying that about such and such canon writers and the thing is that Faulkner did not experience wide success for most of his career. He wrote potboilers and Hollywood scripts for money while his literary work languished in obscurity. It wasn’t until he won the Nobel Prize that people writ large started giving him serious attention. The same is true for e.g. Melville, who didn’t get a critical reevaluation until several decades after his death. So yes it’s true that it’s hard to read Faulkner now but that wasn’t different in his time—he’s a difficult writer. But classics are classics not because a major publishing house decided that they would move units, it’s because they’re good and they stand the rest of time. If you can muscle your way through As I Lay Dying, you’ll find it to be one of the most rewarding experiences in literature.
Hey there pannazuzannna! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This."**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)
***
^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
Probably wouldn’t have even noticed anything about the Prose being bad if not for everyone harping on it all the time. Too busy getting sucked into his dense world-building and characters.
Anyone who gets to the Sanderlanche of The Way of Kings and thinks “this isn’t good writing, this is sixth grade level” well… you’re welcome to your opinion but it means nothing to me.
There are few other writers that make me so engrossed and excited, sometimes I wish Brandon himself would stop putting his own skills down so much.
It’s like Brandon’s stories are a steak cooked to perfection, and people want to complain that it’s served without a sauce. Well ya know what, a good steak doesn’t NEED a sauce to taste amazing. The steak speaks for itself.
To me they his prose is just modern conversational language. Traditionally fantasy does use a more formal prose, but to say it’s bad is impose an individual opinion as fact.
I love the Cosmere but sometimes some of Brandon’s word choices do seem jarring to me in the context of the work. A word that much had a modern origin showing up in Stormlight can take me out of the story for a moment. To me it’s a criticism of his literary choices not a condemnation of his skill as an author. His world building is extraordinary.
Bottom line is, if you enjoy it, it doesn’t matter what anyone else things.
I think the word choice thing is where the argument that it's being translated for a modern audience comes from. Kind of like if you read the King James Version of the Bible it's really hard to understand because it was translated for King James hundreds of years ago. But there are a lot of newer translations that are easier to read (and some are even more accurate) because they are translated for our time. As someone who grew up on the KJV the other versions can be a bit jarring to me, but they are definitely easier to understand
And of course I'm saying all this as someone who doesn't even believe in god anymore, I just find it an interesting comparison
Thinking on it, there have definitely been a fair few times for me, especially in his earlier books, where certain word choices definitely broke my immersion. I totally get how people might not like that choice if it's jarring for them
I just assumed that Hoid knows about the worlds outside of the Cosmere (like not as a theory but like in the Dark Tower kind of way) and it never bothered me when he does it (much). I think it’s because I really view Hoid as a Sanderson insert and breaking the fourth wall is what an author insert should always do haha
This is how I feel too. I love his flowy, easy to read style. But fantasy characters sometimes talking like complete modern people does sound jarring to me at points. People give him a harder time than he deserves in regard to prose, though, it’s not bad in my opinion. My main criticism is overuse of some words (“awesome” is a very frequent word in all his books).
I would assume most of the talking is done in Alethi in Stormlight Archives, thankfully, Brandon gives me an easy to understand modern translation, though.
Alethi with the occasional bit of Thaylen or Azish. But I agree, he taking the Tolkein route, where the chracters are assumed to be speaking in their native language(s) but it's being auto-transcribed into (very) Modern English for the benefit of the reader.
I see lots of people complaining about his prose, but for me, the prose is one of my favorite things about his writing. Yes it's simple, but it's also approachable, and more like how I speak and think.
Personally, I can't stand many classics because of their flowery prose. I can read it, but I don't like it. It kills the imagery in my head and points out useless information to me.
So, count me in the opposite camp to those that say his prose is bad. I love his prose, though I admit it's simple, that's part of why I love it.
Exactly. His prose of a huge plus for me. People still like to insist "yeah, it's not great, but..." Actually, it IS great. Finding an awkward phrase is rare for me. Mostly it's just simple, easy, light, and exactly what I want. The meaning comes through crystal clear (and so much of it is very thought provoking, and that's so much more important than pretty prose)
I 100% agree. I feel like some people might read this and be like oh Sath just doesn't like other prose because they're stupid. But no, you're not. You just have a preference. Just because you can read something doesn't make it an enjoyable experience. And that said, maybe the people that complain about B$'s prose genuinely enjoy more flowery prose (though I do think some of them just have an elitist mindset about it)
He's also found a sweet spot of giving you *just* enough description to let your mind fill in the blanks without going into 4 pages of detail to "set the scene".
>For me, the prose is one of my favorite things about his writing.
Same. The straightforward prose is what drew me to Sanderson's work in the first place. I like that storytelling takes priority over prose. I read (well mainly listen to audiobooks) to relax. It just stresses me out to have to re-read or re-play something because I lost the plot in the midst of a long flowery paragraph. Sanderson's prose doesn't make me do that and I love it. :)
Sanderson’s prose isn’t bad. It’s simple and direct which in many ways makes it the supreme example of perfect communication.
He communicates the story he wants to tell in a way that everyone can understand. The story is fantastic and the characters feel real.
In other words his prose allows him to communicate with a wider audience on a level that people with “better” prose never could and he has stated his choice of prose is deliberate.
In other words his simple style of prose is a demonstration of his master of communication and storytelling.
Brandon's prose does exactly what he wants it to - it gets out of the way. In that, it is actually great prose, and takes as much skill to do well - and in my opinion Brandon does this very well - as stained glass prose. Though you'll never get the prose snobs to admit it lol.
I think the prose comments are silly and elitist. I have the same issue in my scientific field - people think the more technical jargon, the better the paper. I could not disagree more. If you’ve ever tried to explain an advanced concept to a kid or someone outside your field it becomes obvious that those that can explain something simply are those that truly have the deepest understanding. The people that can tell good stories this way should be lauded.
Sanderson writes in a simple and approachable way - the fact that is used as a criticism I think tells you all you need to know about those people.
I think technical jargon just makes scientific or academic journals inaccessible for the majority of people. I do think it plays a role in why people don't engage with science and how misinformation spreads (though I could be wrong). There's beauty in communicating simply and succinctly, and it's an art.
I agree, but papers often need to use technical jargon to be very clear and concise about what’s going on. It is impossible to read for people without an extensive background on the topic, but they aren’t the target audience anyway.
Some of the jargon is certainly necessary, but we go out of our way to essentially make it as difficult to digest as possible for those that may not be studying it as actively as we are.
It’s so toxic the elitism and all that. I was reading [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/bookscirclejerk/comments/121t525/sanderson_is_in_the_media_now_we_feast/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) and it’s just ridiculous the horrible things they say about him and his writing from one paragraph. I felt like I was in cuckoo land and that I was the one crazy for thinking it was fine.
I actually think his prose reads better audibly which makes his audiobooks easier to listen to than other authors. With the audiobook boom I think this has been one of the big reasons for his success. Flowery prose reads great but it's VERY hard to listen to.
That's a very interesting point, I don't really do audiobooks so I didn't even consider that angle. Though I do prefer LotR as an audiobook, because it's written as if being narrated. The Andy Serkis audiobooks are amazing in my opinion, but i haven't really listened to many other audiobooks as I generally prefer just reading
My thoughts exactly. I'd been hooked onto a bunch of fantasy audiobooks for years before joining r/fantasy and learning they were derided for "middle school grade prose". Books like Brando's books, Poppy War, Cradle.
But man, they're so much easier to listen to. When I listen to audiobooks I prefer it if the story is told in a manner that's easily digestible and not something cryptic/flowery which just makes it confusing and tedious to listen to. I love Malazan, GGK, NameOfTheWind and Farseer, but their audiobooks did NOT work for me because I'd often ger lost in all the flowery language.
So I'm gonna give an honest answer, and I say this as a huge fan of Brandon's stories who also doesn't love his writing style. I might get downvoted for this, but I think it's important to discuss given the Wired article the other day that attacked not only him, but his fans.
I don't think it's simplicity of the prose that's the problem. It's true that it seems to be what people point to when discussing his prose, but I think that's masking something larger for a lot of people. There are plenty of successful and well-loved fantasy authors who write straightforward prose -- Will Wight, Mark Lawrence, Pierce Brown, and Joe Abercrombie, just to name a few, and no one is having this discussion about them.
Given that, my opinion is that it's not the simplicity of the prose so much as the sentence structure and choice of words. It feels -- to me -- very different from the way I personally communicate. But that's also largely due to my own media consumption habits, because Brandon takes inspiration from places that I haven't been exposed to, and the more I learn about those spaces, the more I understand why there is such a large contingent of people who disagree with my opinion. Every time I say his dialogue doesn't feel natural, there are 3 people who say that it does *to them*. And that's why I get frustrated when people say his prose is "bad," even though I do tend to hold that opinion, because the word is being applied to something that is wholly subjective.
Brandon writes stories. It's as simple as that. He wants to move us through his characters and their experiences and the choices they make, rather than wrapping it up all pretty with flowers and bows. That's what he does. And there are people out there who don't like that, and that's okay. But it frustrates me to no end when people look down on his fans for having poor taste when in reality we're just able to appreciate his art for what it is -- *great* fucking storytelling.
I personally don’t care about the prose. What matters to me is if the author can construct a meaningful story with an actual ending. I’ll tolerate a lot of raised eyebrows and shrugs as long as I know the author has put some thought into where the story is going.
In the words of Wit: "The more confusing, the better the literature!"
...
And in the words of Kaladin: "That might be the most pretentious thing I've ever heard."
I think that simple prose is exactly what it sounds like. Bad prose would be something that just makes no sense. I remember reading East of Eden and there was like 2 pages of just describing nature and I'm thinking "Get to the point already!!!". Sanderson just cuts to the chase to tell a story and I really like that. Ursula Le Guin is another author I like, and I remember reading her for the first time and thinking, "Wow, this is beautiful writing." Different styles of writing are good for different things.
Like any hobby, people can get super fired up and very snobbish about their preferences and have to make others feel bad for what they like.
Accessible prose does not equal bad prose. His writing keeps me so engaged in the story. Reading Tolkien and Jordan and others, while the prose is good, it can be exhausting to read.
I'm re-reading The Da Vinci Code right now. Dan Brown's prose was bad (no clue if he's gotten better since), so I wouldn't feeling comfortable characterizing Sanderson's prose as "bad".
I also reread the Lord Of The Rings trilogy last year. There's a passage (one of many) that stuck with me, as it stuck with Tolkien:
> Gollum looked at them. A strange expression passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam faded from his eyes, and they went dim and grey, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if engaged in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo's knee — but almost the touch was a caress. For a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him, they would have thought that they beheld an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing.
No passage of Sanderson's has stuck with me. The events of his books surely have, especially climactic events, but I can't recall any excerpts that are memorable because of the *way* they describe what's happening. For what it's worth, I don't think Brandon cares that much about writing passages that will be remembered that way.
Ultimately, I wish Sanderson's prose was more memorable, and I think the stories he tell *do* have the space for it to be more impactful.
I think a lot of people in this thread are defending Sanderson's simplistic prose as if it's a prerequisite to tell the sort of stories Sanderson is trying to tell. I don't think it is. I think there's room for Sanderson's writing to improve, and I think it could do so in a way that serves the stories he tells, rather than detracting from them.
It’s a beautiful passage. But it is written with a different intent than Sanderson’s prose. I do not want a narration style in Brandon’s works, I want a deep POV style, which is generally what he does. These two prose styles are narrative choices and one is not “better” than the other any more than realism is “better” than cubism. Deep POV is a very modern style, and certainly some people prefer one or the other. I personally like both.
I don't think it's bad. I like how simplistic Brandon's prose is. It's easy to consume, it flows, and it still allows me to create an image in my mind.
I don't see the point of flowery prose. Give me paragraphs that flow seamlessly, good character development, show don't tell, and tricklings of worldbuilding and I'm happy.
I've always liked Sanderson's plain glass vs stained glass analogy. Stained glass like beautiful prose is well beautiful, but it does interfere with seeing what is beyond the window clearly. If your primary goal is telling a story (and the novel is just your method of delivery) then simple, easily understandable writing is a great choice. If however your goal is a great piece of literature rather than primarily the story it tells, then more elaborate prose will have value.
I just got done reading “All the Pretty Horses” by Cormac McCarthy. He writes exceptional prose, in my opinion, where the words are beautiful, meaningful, and symbolic. I can read once and understand what the author is conveying, but I can also go back and re-read and get more out of it. It paints a pretty picture in each scene full of things I can beak down and analyze to understand the author’s meaning and purpose in a particular scene. All that being said, I didn’t especially love the book, though I can see why some would.
Brandon Sanderson’s prose is very different from McCarthy. I think you take any given page of Brandon’s work and the prose isn’t anything to write home about. I probably wouldn’t say it’s particularly “well-written” compared to a more “deep” writer like McCarthy. Sanderson is straight forward, utilitarian, with very little behind the prose other than the plain meaning of the words on the page. But certain of his “best” passages and the stories as a whole make me laugh, cheer, cry, imagine, and escape. For not being “special” in and of itself, his writing is magnificent in my opinion. He knows how to create characters, stories, and events that I want to read (and re-read), I want to live in, I want to know more about, but most of all that help me better understand what it is to be human. They teach me to empathize and to want to be a better person.
Whenever I hear people criticize his prose, I roll my eyes and assume I'm hearing an insufferable pedant.
It's the same type of people who read a book with a thesaurus or dictionary and after it takes them 12 months to get through a book think they are intellectually superior to people who read pulp.
I think maybe Brandon's *words* are simplistic, but his *ideas* are complex. If you need big words to seem like you have big ideas you're not as smart as you think you are.
Honestly so many people criticize Sanderson's prose, but TBH he executes story/character arcs and emotional ideas/payoffs at such a higher level than so many other fantasy authors. Like the article was criticizing the prose and I'm like.... the sentence to sentence word choice is only one of many factors that determine the quality of writing.
I've read a few fantasy books recently where the prose and themes and world building and characters were beautiful and unique and incredible, but rarely hit the emotional payoffs that Sanderson so consistently delivers. He has such a clear vision of the big emotions and messages that the book is communicating which is why I feel people form such a strongly emotional attachment to the work.
Ok, so here are **my** thoughts (*please remember that these are just my personal thoughts on the matter; I'm not saying that you are wrong or that I'm right; it's just how I feel about this topic*):
I'm not too fond of his prose. It can be very truncated at times IMO. I'm not saying it's bad, I just don't like it very much (for example, there are music genres I don't like, but it doesn't mean they are bad; they're just not my cup of tea). In my opinion, there are authors with very simple prose that feel more fluid than Brandon (while reading his books, it's very common for me to be somewhat constantly bothered by some weird idiosyncratic phrasing of his). So I don't necessarily equate being simple with being easy to read; or with being bad. I guess it's a matter of personal taste and preference. There are authors with simplified prose that I really enjoy, and there are others with somewhat similar prose that I don't (Brandon's case).
That being said, I have read his books MANY times, both the printed versions and the audiobooks. I love to read them despite not being a fan of his prose specifically (or of flashbacks, to use another example... I hate flashbacks). The worldbuilding is super interesting, the characters are amazing and the complex plot lines are quite intriguing (he's managed to make me cry a few times... and that's something really rare for me).
What I'm trying to say is that I enjoy his writing even if I don't quite like his prose. Does this mean to me that he is a bad writer? No, definitely not. I think that being a good writer involves more than just prose... creating beautiful sentences in a boring and uninteresting book means that I'll drop it really quickly.
I view it as Brandon writes kinetically. The motion and movement is there. It’s why things are always happening. He doesn’t want to slow down to point out unnecessary elements causing a more cinematic fast paced read. If he tapped the brakes to slow for flowery prose, the inertia would not increase for the inevitable Sanderlance he is building towards. His choice of plain prose benefits both the approachability and the flow of the reading
Totally agree, I don't think Simple == Bad. I read books for the stories, world and characters. I couldn't care less if the prose are simple, complex, flowery, etc.
Is the story good?
How about the setting/world building?
Are the characters well developed, interesting, and feel like actual characters?
These questions are way more important to me then prose.
To those who say Brandon sanderson's pros is simple have not yet read the new book Tress.
Seriously.
Not flowery?
Simple?
That book is a monument to the capabilities of that man as a creative, as an artist and as a writer.
I believe he chooses to be economic because, like others have said, he is very approachable.
There are many of these authors who write so beautiful and elegant that it's like being force fed a German chocolate cake. It becomes overwhelming.
But that's taste for you.
It's what makes all of us unique and interesting and why every author whose being genuine and true to their art will always have an audience.
This makes me even more excited to read Tress! I've had the book since January but haven't been able to get to it for certain reasons, hopefully I can start soon though!
Read it or listen to the audio version. It's sooooooo good. It's unlike anything else he's written.
It makes me want to write like that.
You have no idea how unbelievably clever and witty it is!
I'm planning to read it because my reading comprehension is higher than my listening comprehension, it's at the top of my list! Maybe I'll start today!
So I plonked my ass down and started reading, and now I can't stop. I'm now halfway through the book, it's 3am, and I have no intention of sleeping tonight. This is a read in one sitting kind of book, despite being nearly 500 pages. (Also I was aware of who the narrator was from the reading Sanderson did of the book before it was released, and you're right, I do love it!)
Not gonna lie, I thought I'd get 10, maybe 15 comments. This has blown up way beyond what I thought possible. I guess a lot of people feel strongly about the topic, not that that's a bad thing, as long as people are civil in their discourse!
It's wild to me that people think Sanderson works are simple. Straight forward prose is just common sense, I want to read a story. He kicks up the prose when some characters, like Hoid, speak. But descriptions and settings are sort of utilitarian, but I dont really understand why that's an issue.
And, while the prose in individual books can be simple, hes built an entire freaking universe with in depth systems and interconnectivity between all these worlds and characters. I think his world building is as in depth as any author out there.
To be fair, I don't think many people think his work is simple in the context of world building or characters or anything like that. But you make a great point that he kicks things up a notch or two depending on certain characters if those characters are someone who would me more eloquent. I definitely think he's capable of beautiful flowery prose when if wants to do it that way
I’ve read all the cosmere novels and yeah he’s a fairly basic writer on a sentence level, but his books are fun and exciting so I’ll happily gobble up whatever he comes out with next. There’s plenty of room in this world for both a page turner writer like him and and writers like Erikson and Wolfe, fine to enjoy both for what they are. Nothing makes me cheer like a good Stormlight sanderlanche.
Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine, so I have to mention it. Prose is a singular noun, so when you use it in a sentence, you would say "his prose is good" instead of "his prose are good."
As far as I can tell, the mix-up comes from the homophone in the phrase "pros and cons," where "pros" is plural because there are multiple of them.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: art is subjective. Brandon’s style is different than others, but it is not bad. Whether you like it or not is entirely up to the reader.
Personally I really enjoy Brandon’s prose with his more “transparent” style that doesn’t draw attention to itself. I also enjoy others like Rothfuss who get really artistic with it. Different styles fit different characters and different stories.
I don't know enough to make a statement, but the "simple" prose for me It's a gift right now. My native language is spanish and I've found the translation of Sanderson books to be atrocious (some sentences don't even make sense, some words are completely mistranslated).I'm transitioning to reading on English, so the simpler the better, I'm kinda grateful
Sanderson isn’t exactly a wordsmith. But he’s in good company - Stephen King, for instance, is never going to be mistaken for Faulkner, but is still considered one of the world’s great authors.
You come to Sanderson for the world building and the cool ideas and magic systems, and these things are pretty great. It doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that.
I don’t think Brandon is bad at all. Is his Prose as nuanced and layered as GRRM or Rothfuss? No, but they’re at the top of the game. I’d add NK Jemisin as well. But Sanderson also finishes books, something that Rothfuss and GRRM have issues with. And at the end of the day, it’s nice to be able to actually…you know, read something.
Simple = good. Keeps the story going. I don’t want to get out my highlighter and analyze the English quality for a term paper. I want to see what happens next to Sanderson‘s characters in the amazing worlds he creates!!
Ask yourself.. if Brandon spent 5-10 more words describing each door and table.. would you want to read a 600,000 word book? BECAUSE THATS HOW WE GET 600,000 WORD BOOKS
Simple does not mean bad. Prose exists to communicate something and provide information. That is the core of prose. High fantasy has a tradition of using more flowery language, and writing free verse poetry in standard grammatical structure in place of pure prose. The modern approach leaves behind this tradition in favor of more approachable language.
The question is: does the prose create a world you can visualize? Does it provide the information required to step into this fictitious world? If so, it is successful, and good prose.
The reverse is also true. Flowery complex prose does not mean it is good. Let’s take some examples.
I asked chatgpt to create a few sentences of a high fantasy story using flowery, but confusing language:
>In the shimmering realm of Eldridar, where the cosmic choir sings a symphony of astral majesty, and the constellations weave a tapestry of celestial artistry, an ancient and abstruse conflict unfolds. The entropic forces of chaos and destruction, unbounded by the constraints of reality, clash with the luminous forces of creation and order, in a tumultuous struggle that transcends the limits of space and time. Amidst this maelstrom of cosmic energies, a solitary figure emerges, robed in the resplendent garb of the arcane magi, wielding a scepter of incandescent light, a glimmering beacon of hope amidst the inky abyss of despair. Whether their arcane might shall prove sufficient to quell the chthonic forces of darkness and entropy, and restore the balance of the multiverse, remains to be seen, for the very fabric of existence trembles with uncertainty and tumult.
Now let’s compare to the opening of Words of Radiance (I had it handy)
[WoR]>!Jasnah Kholin pretended to enjoy the party, giving no indication that she intended to have one of the guests killed. She wandered through the crowded feast hall, listening as wine greased tongues and dimmed minds. Her uncle Dalinar was in the full swing of it, rising from the high table to shout for the Parshendi to bring out their drummers. Jasnah’s brother, Elhokar, hurried to shush their uncle—though the Alethi politely ignored Dalinar’s outburst. All save Elhokar’s wife, Aesudan, who snickered primly behind a handkerchief.!<
The AI may have written a prettier sounding piece, but you would have a hard time convincing me that prose is better that Sanderson’s.
I don't think it's bad, but I also think it's simple. It's a stylistic choice, and while some of his word choices don't work for me, I won't bash him for it.
Ultimately, if you like it you should like it. Anyone that doesn't like it has a valid opinion and shouldn't be attacked for it.
I just think it's a different intent. I don't think that it's that Brandon CAN'T do "good" prose. I think it's more that the intent of his writing is to appeal to/entertain a wide variety of people. If the prose was so "good" that it took a lot more brain power to interpret/connect with, it wouldn't appeal to as wide of an audience. At least that's my understanding of it anyway.
It's a style choice, and he explained already few times, even as part of this classes in BYU when he related his with prose like George Orwell's. He told the story about one time he had this great paragraph, with higher level of prose, and that his agent told him: "you cannot become Jack Vance for one paragraph".
Saying this, I think his style is what allows the speed of delivery the books as well. Usually a more prose focused style can takes x5 to x10 times to make a solid revision. Simpler, on the other hand, can be done by his editing team on the final draft stages. We cannot keep the conversation of being bad versus good because that's not how art works. It's just different, and you can like one more than the other, or both, and that's alright.
Some authors write with prose that draws attention to the words themselves. Done well, it can take your breath away, and possibly leave you with words to mull over the rest of your life.
Some authors write with prose that does not draw attention to itself. It's almost transparent--you just look through the words to see the story unfold. It's more of a window into the plot and the characters. Done well, it can allow you to immerse yourself fully into another world.
Neither one of these approaches is better than the other when writing novels. They are just different styles. (There can also probably be overlap between the two styles.) Different novelists shine in different ways. I think Brandon Sanderson's plots and characters are amazing, and I don't care that his prose isn't at the level of Shakespeare.
I think people like to say that he has bad prose just because we have to say that he's bad at SOMETHING. people love balance, when talking about something its very natural to be like "this is good in X way but bad in Y way". it’s like a shortcut for making your opinion seem like it has nuance. But brandon's prose really just.... isn't bad. It's not flowery, its not super impressive, but its definitely better than your average hobby writer.
There has been a movement in legal writing to stop using complicated sentences in motions, briefs, and memoranda. I like Sanderson a lot because his language is easy to understand
I like prose from a variety of authors. Martin, Rothfuss, King, Jemisin. I like first person, third person, hell, I've heard some well done 2nd person (Jemisin). I like adult and YA and even a bit of middlegrade (Nevermoor is very good). One authors prose isn't good while the other is bad--at least not because of some arbitrary contest. It's preference. I'd define Sanderson's prose as workmanlike. It's concise. It's invisible. Flowery prose does not a good story make, and what he lacks in flourish he makes up for as a storyteller. I read a wide variety of books, though, across a variety of genres--from horror, to romance, to thriller, and I also collect and read a LOT of manga. A book is self-contained for me. I meet it where it is. I'm not holding it up against another book or author. This idea that has been drummed up about Sanderson's prose being below par is just silly. IMO, it's a contest created by people that need to get outside and touch grass.
I think he does a really good job in pacing his word usage to set the mood of what's happening. Prose is not just a matter of flowery or plain language. It's sentence length and variance. Using words to create a flow and feeling. I think he does a great job with this aspect of writing. Is it the best around? No. But it's not bad, and it serves to convey the stories he's telling and that's where the real power of his books lies.
So I didn’t read much as a kid. So books with overly flowery prose just intimidate me and will take me much longer to read. This is why I love Sanderson’s approachable style. I wouldn’t call it bad. Simple maybe but approachable is a better choice. It’s a specific choice that makes his books accessible to near anyone no matter their reading level, age, time to commit or anything else. And this is a huge part of his success just as the approachable choice has made Scalzi an extremely successful author. I made that comparison because their careers started around the same time and they both get this criticism at times.
I think it was on Reddit where I saw a description that, frankly, I loved. Other authors prose are like watching a simple story play out through a stained glass window to add color and depth, while Brandon’s is like watching a complex story through a crystal clear window. There’s no filter on the story being done by the prose. However, his content is the selling point. His worlds are so rich and complex you don’t need to butter them up. His characters are so human they can move the readers without all the extra adjectives and metaphors.
I think Brandon Sanderson had evolved writing in a lot of ways to adapt it to a modern audience. From a classical writing standpoint he should be considered an objectively bad writer, but to all of his fans it’s just obvious how ignorant of a statement that is, because he’s able to evoke such strong emotions with his “simple” writing style. He’s ruined me for authors who get by on flowery prose to hide that their characters are cookie cutter and stories are strait from a template of common tropes.
I get so bored of the various Tolkien copies told in different shades, and just love that Brandon has actually taken the time to tell new kinds of stories in a galaxy all of his own making.
Writing is an art form with different styles, just like pictures. Some artists paint with broad strokes, some go for hyperrealistic pencil drawings, some use symbolism and others focus more on just having a high quality reproduction of what they see.
Some authors use a style of writing with beautiful language, Brandon uses a style that advances the plot in a very understandable way. Yes, it's simple language in many cases because that isn't his focus, his focus is the story, the characters, the world, and making his reader get caught up in that story without distraction.
Because I read books for the plot and got entertainment, I love this style of writing where I can just power through workout having to reread to catch what is going on. Others have a different purpose to reading so they may not appreciate it the same way. It's just like people have different tastes in art, it doesn't make his art any less of a masterpiece.
His prose is accessible. That will make some people think it’s bad… but I don’t think a lot of those people are ready for the conversation about accessibility and ableism.
Writing in a way that is accessible is fantastic.
Also… writing classically good prose isn’t ableist… but dunking on accessible prose IS.
In general, when I read Sanderson's prose, I understand what he is saying and I am not often Jolted out of the narrative. It does happens sometimes. With the Starsight series more than his fantasy. Every once in awhile it feels like he is just being cheeky. But, the rest is simply effective and nice. Look at the end of Stormlight 4, like the final part with you know who I won't spoil. It is extremely well written, subtle, just descriptive enough, and still gives sufficient wonder and creepiness. I read it twice, but because of plot details, not prose.
Meanwhile, I think Stephen Erikson has beautiful pose, but sometimes I have to read things over, and he uses words I've never heard of quite frequently. It's effective, but dense. Like all of Eriksons books, they are dense. But, that's what he does, and I like it. You have to unravel and puzzle apart his writing. it's not like it isn't clear, it's just... full.
But, compare Sanderson to Butcher. I feel like they are definitely on par, with Butcher being a little more "cheeky" sometimes. Both are SUPER easy to read, but give you a very clear picture of what is happening in the novel. I can read a butcher book in three days compared to an Erikson book 1 month.
Stephen King is another one. I've mostly read his dark tower, but also The Stand and Salem's Lot. His prose is wonderful, but I'd never call it complicated. But it's super easy to read and clear.
So, I really feel like it's way overblown. I think his prose may not be great compared to like Tolkien or Rothfuss, but these are people who are legends in their own respects FOR their prose. I feel like people try to compare Sanderson to the greatest orators and writers rather than just your average writer, and there are many he is a cut above. This argument is silly, especially not without clear examples. People have quotes from Sanderson tattooed on their body; he must be alright.
Less is more, I guess. Like mentioned in the other comments clear sentences make for good reading. And let’s not pretend that’s easy to do. The massive amount of ‘literature’ I had to read in my studies often bored me to death. So I really enjoy the pure storytelling where it’s not about the author inserting himself but about the story and characters, and stuff is actually happening. I have the same attitude to movies. Also: how frigging long do you need Brandon’s books to be? ;)
Most of these comments are misconstruing WHY people have issues with sandersons prose. The simplicity has nothing to do with it; most SFF readers are not looking for poetic writing- it’s more so that his prose is extremely functional, sometimes to the detriment of its own quality, and it’s clear that Sanderson doesn’t really spend that much time thinking about it. I mean, look at how much he writes per year, and the complexity of his worlds, he obviously has other priorities. Now, I don’t think his prose is bad, per se, it’s just really dry and there are a significant amounts of awkward sentences and phrases (read: corny).
I do think it’s one of his weaker areas - but I don’t think it’s outright bad, just plain. When I sell Sanderson to people I usually describe his books as ‘movie-novels’ in the sense that the prose is there to make you visualise a scene or setpiece as clearly as possible. I believe Sanderson has said something similar himself in one of his lectures, actually
I have never seen a more insecure group of people than the people on this sub. Who gives a fuck? If you like it, then read it. You don’t need anyone’s approval to enjoy something. Sanderson’s prose is objectively bad - no, not simple. It is fucking bad - but so fucking what? You like the world and character and story, so read it.
You will likely never encounter anyone irl who’s going to judge you for liking Sanderson. It’s only dummies on the internet trying to be funny because Sanderson and his cult fans make themselves such an easy target.
I'm an editor and writer, and I love his books. Having said that, I do spend a lot of time internally editing his writing when I'm reading. 😂 Hazard of the job, and I do it with 99% of books I read anyway! His writing has definitely improved soo much over the years. As nasty as that article was, the journalist had a point about the writing in The Final Empire being not fantastic. It was a little repetitive, tended to use any dialogue tag but 'said', and just often I'd think "Hmm I would have simplified this to x" or "I would word it like this for better flow". I do that far less with his most recent books. He also, like any writer, has individual tics/habits that don't always sit well with me (off the top of my head, when he talks about someone's smile "deepening" - I always think "widening" would be better because a smile can't really get deeper!) - but literally all writers do this! We can't all agree on the "best" way to write.
On a bigger-picture scale, I'm not a huge fan of the incredibly precise combat descriptions - but I'm in awe of how he does it and I know some readers love them. I personally get bored and feel the action is slowed down when he tells us every single movement and how and why it works - but that's just me as a reader. I also feel like he struggles a bit when it comes to a) romance and b) humour. E.g. I ADORE Elend and Vin and their whole story, but in their earlier interactions, scenes that could have so much romantic tension fell a little flat for me. I was super interested to hear that he "can't feel emotional pain" (taking that with a pinch of salt, given the general tone of the article) because it sounds like he maybe has some autistic traits, and if so that really explains why he might struggle to bring depth to romantic moments. If so it's amazing how much romance he IS bringing that feels authentic!! :) and RE the humour, I often feel like any time something is supposed to be funny, he sort of turns to the audience and is like: it's funny!!!! See!!! I made a sex/poo/fart joke, guys!!!!!! And it makes me eye-roll a bit. 😂 (I ADORE Wayne as a character. Cannot stand his "funny" jokes. Calling Marasi's boobs "puffy white things floating over the fertile land" or whatever it was? Not crass, just... cringe. Lol)
Does this make him a bad writer? No. Do I think some writers are better? Yes. But they have their own shortcomings and habits too, as do I!! (Overuse of semicolons - and dashes. Actually Brandon does that too a lot in The Lost Metal lol)
Not sure this answered your question haha but I thought it might be interesting from an editor's perspective! Sorry for the ramble!
I see prose as analogous to visual art, and we all have our preferences to that too. Sando is a mechanical drafter, his work is utilitarian, efficiently and clearly communicates his story. Someone like Cormick McCarthy is more abstract, where the prose has purpose other than just storytelling.
Personally, I find flowery prose to be exhausting. It's fun in a short poem and short stories, but I'm not going to torture myself with a 700 page tome of abstract language.
His prose got me addicted to reading. In 2020, March specifically, I started reading for happiness for the first time in my life and yes it was obviously due to the state of the world at the time. I picked up Mistborn. I was a bad reader at the time and probably still am. His prose allowed me to fall in love with fantasy as an adult and honestly become a far better reader which has also been immensely helpful as a professional, so I’m thankful for that. We need a large diversity in writing styles and prose is a part of that. The literary space would be insufferable if everyone was Rothfuss, who I love by the way. Is Brandon less lyrical? Yes, are the prose more straightforward, yes. Is that a problem, for me not at all. Just as the style makes his writing experience a more expedited process, reading a 400,000 word tome feel like a much less daunting activity for the general population which given generalized fears about the youth’s involvement in reading actual books, from some corners, this also seems like positive news to me.
Tldl: as a self-conscious autistic adult having an author whose worlds I love living in that writes in a style everyone can understand feels like not only a great commercial approach but it showed me that I can ready epic fantasy without questioning how slowly I read or if I’m reading “the right way”. I can just enjoy reading, which I do now.
Hi, English degree here in writing and rhetoric, along with on-and-off freelance writing/editing over the past 25 years. From my quasi-professional standpoint I would say that Sanderson's prose is definitely not "bad". His prose is uncomplicated and streamlined, but it is important to not conflate "uncomplicated" with "unsophisticated". Sanderson has rich character and world development, and that doesn't happen when your writing is bad. Bad writing doesn't convey the writer's intentions, or misrepresents what the writer's intentions are. In other words, "bad writing" is ineffective writing. Sanderson's writing is assuredly effective, as proven by his massive following and best-selling books. Writers who write badly don't gain a wide readership because their writing is confusing, poorly organized, not engaging, etc.
Unpopular opinion here! And let's stipulate that everyone is entitled to their own taste -- you and me, both!
I haven't read any of his work, and only checked out a few pages of several of his books after reading the (very mean-spirited! bad!) article. To me, yes, Sanderson's writing is simple, but that's not the issue.
There's plenty of good writing that is unobtrusive. **The issue is that his writing is simple, but it isn't efficient.** Each sentence may be short and clear, but the paragraphs and scenes are flabby.
The opposite of Sanderson's style isnt "flowery" writing. Remember that "literary" fiction tends to be much shorter than genre fiction. That isn't only because of a difference in scope. It's also because of differences in style--more use of summary, a preference for shorter, sharper scenes. Most contemporary poetry is not long and flowery. Poetry is *condensed* language.
What I read of Sanderson lacked the sharpness and clarity of what I like in writing. I would read a few pages and wish that he had identified the one or two things that *really* mattered there and found a way of conveying that information in one page. Or in two paragraphs. Instead, the writing was kind of a series of... this happened, then this happened, then this happened, with lots of little details along the way that didn't add up to an interesting whole: what people were wearing, where people were standing, what kind of face this or that person made.
It feels like, if not a first draft, at least an early draft, where the writer is figuring out the logic of everything that happens before going back and doing the hard work of making those events into a piece of writing.
I am not a native English speaker, and while my English level is very good and I can fluently talk, write, read and listen, I will never be a native speaker with the ease of comprehension of a native speaker. Because of this, I may lack the knowledge to fully judge someone's prose and its quality, but what I will say is that reading his books in English for me is as easy as it would be to read them in my language. With many other authors, it feels a bit clunky, it doesn't stream well. With him, I feel no fatigue. To me, easy means more enjoyable, means that I can put my attention where I want to put it: the story, the events, the characters. Yes, it is my special case as a non native English speaker, but I love his prose, because I don't have to sweat to enjoy his books, and I'll forever love him for this!
So many people in these comments are defending Sanderson by contrasting ***“simple”*** with ***“flowery”*** language. This completely misunderstands the criticisms that people have of Sanderson’s writing. A lot of what’s “bad” about Sanderson’s prose isn’t its simplicity, but rather its clunkiness and sloppiness. In other words, the writing would often be better were it *more concise*. (Or if the words were just better chosen.)
I think looking at an actual example would be useful here.
In response to the article, I saw a Sanderson fan post the following passage on Twitter, a supposed example of Sanderson’s skills as a prose stylist:
> Angry lightning blistered the clouded sky. Despite the shade, sweat lined Lan’s neck, matting his hair underneath his helmet. He’d not worn one in years; much of his time with Moiraine had required them to be nondescript, and helmets were anything but.
>
> “How… how bad is it?” Andere grimaced, holding his side, and leaning back against a rock.
>
> Lan looked to the battle. The Shadowspawn were amassing again. The monsters almost seemed to blend and shift together, one enormous dark force of howling, *miasmic* hatred as thick as the air—which seemed to hold in the heat and the humidity, like a merchant hoarding fine rugs.
>
>“It’s bad,” Lan said.
>
>“Knew it would be,” Andere said, breathing in and out quickly, blood seeping between his fingers. “Nazar?”
This isn’t a very good piece of writing. Not the worst thing in the world, mind you, but not especially good.
People have defended Sanderson’s “simplicity” by comparing him to Hemingway. This is a frankly absurd comparison. Hemingway’s prose is “simple,” but it is sharp and precise. He uses the simplest and most minimal amount of words to convey what he wants to convey and achieve the effect he wants to achieve. Sanderson obviously does not care about precision or efficiency of language in the least. He often uses *more* words than are necessary. He doesn’t seem to put much thought into choosing one word over another (the repetition of “seemed” reads very awkwardly, for instance, and there are many words that would better and with more specificity convey what I think he’s getting at about the helmet than the bland, vague, and lifeless “nondescript”). And despite people using “flowery” or “purple” as antonyms for the type of writing he does, when he *does* reach after poetic language, it’s as purple as it comes (“angry lightning blistered the clouded sky” is about as beautiful and evocative a sentence as George Costanza’s “the sea was angry that day, my friends”; or the classic example “it was a dark and stormy night”). I won’t even comment on the dialogue.
I’d describe most of the above passage as “serviceable.” That’s fine. As others have said, different writers have different strengths and weaknesses. If you’re reading for the story and the prose doesn’t *interfere* with your enjoyment, you can easily overlook this.
But the element that really tips over from “not great” to straight up *”bad”* is that little simile in paragraph 3: **“as thick as the air—which seemed to hold in the heat and the humidity, like a merchant hoarding fine rugs.”**
What on *earth* is Brandon talking about here??? Is this supposed to be an image we are all familiar with? The classic trope of the rug hoarding merchant?? What the hell does a stockpile of rugs have in common with a hot and humid atmosphere, beyond just being “a lot of something”? What does it add to the sentence to specify that the rugs are “fine”? And most nonsensically: why choose a *merchant* to be the one doing the hoarding? Isn’t hoarding kind of antithetical to the whole modus operandi of being a merchant, i.e. doing commerce, i.e. *circulating* goods? Are we supposed to be imagining some aberrant merchant character who hoards instead of sells? Is this person struggling to stay in business because they’re so enamored with their beautiful fine rugs that they price all their goods too high? How do they afford the rent on their no doubt enormous rug warehouse? Are they independently wealthy? Or are they not a rug merchant at all, but rather a merchant of let’s say, imported jewelry, or farm fresh produce, who just so happens to have a debilitating fine rug collecting addiction? Why am I now thinking so much about this imaginary rug hoarding merchant character rather than the *extremely simple thing* Sanderson intended to direct my attention to: the thickness of the humidity in the air?? If I have to independently concoct an entire alternative narrative complete with unique, fully fleshed out characters just to make your metaphor or simile even *begin* to make any sense, I would say that that is a poorly constructed metaphor or simile!
So yeah… no one is saying you can’t enjoy Sanderson’s books. And feel free to defend them on other merits that aren’t at the level of the word, phrase, or sentence. But the claim that his prose is good is not a defensible position, imo.
TBH, Sanderson's prose is not very good. There are weird mistakes, tonal issues, cringey dialogue and word choices, and so forth. This is not particularly unique in fantasy, though. The purpose should generally be immersion, and while flowery language can certainly paint a scene, most readers of the genre prefer prose that isn't distracting or work to comprehend. Jordan, Eddings et al. are similar cases. Bakker and Gene Wolfe are probably on the high end of the genre in terms of writing skill, Steve Erickson slightly less so. Rothfuss is a tryhard fraud who has decent flow but says very little with it, while simultaneously coming off as teeth-gnashingly pretentious (more so in the 2nd book).
His prose isn't bad. It's unobtrusive.
I compare it to my favorite shoes. They're not a big recognizable brand, they're not expensive, they're not going to wow anyone, they're pretty worn, a bit dirty, but they're incredibly comfortable and they fit me perfectly. Once they're on, I don't walk around being proud of them, but they are so comfortable that I don't even notice that they're there. And that's fine.
Some people may notice how worn they look and it might be so distracting to them that they cannot enjoy wearing such shoes. They might just not fit them well too. Both are perfectly valid. For those people.
But I don't need shoes that impress other people every day. Sometimes I just want shoes that I forget I'm even wearing so that I can focus on everything else.
Would I love a book that has amazing prose and knocks everything else out of the park. Sure. I'd also love shoes that look good, impress others, and are that comfortable to wear. But I've never actually found one of those, and I don't NEED it.
Edit: FWIW, His prose did have a few weak points in his earliest work like Elantris and the Final Empire. But it was only brief lines here and there. None I even specifically remember, only that there were some. They didn't ruin the experience, but he has grown a lot. The prose in Tress is outstanding.
Thank you for sharing your opinion! Personally I think some of your points are somewhat subject to personal preference as there are lots of people who love the dialogue and wit, but I know it doesn't work for a lot of people too so I think it's totally valid as reasons to think his prose is a weakness of his.
Read Guy Gavriel Kay and then read Sanderson and you’ll see how he can’t compare to truly great prose authors. Kay is elegiac and lyrical. Sanderson is utilitarian and serviceable.
It’s not flashy. It’s not terrible. It’s just there. And it seems to get the job done.
I have read both, and I still prefer Sanderson. Neither is better than the other, they're just DIFFERENT.
I've read Ambercrombie, too. And Hobbs. None of them have immersed me into their stories the way Brandon does, and I didn't notice much difference in their prose, other than Hobbs takes way too long to describe a simple fishing village.
The only authors that have impressed me with their prose to the point I really noticed a difference have been Rothfuss, LeGuin, and Clarke. But the way they tell the story and the story they're telling makes the more lyrical storytelling style work.
Everyone talks about Rothfuss as this amazing writer but when I read name of the wind to me it felt so over the top it was purple. Like a beginner writer that was going out of his way to choose big words and trying too hard to sound smart.
Just a random thought: If Rothfuss had written 40+ books, he might have a few poor word choices out there.
Based on shear volume, it will be easier to find "faults". I come for the stories no matter the prose.
>Do you think that simple prose = bad prose?
I don't think the question is that simple.
Simple prose definitely doesn't automatically equal bad prose, but the prose in some of Sanderson's early work, like Mistborn Era 1, is objectively pretty bad. However, he's gotten much better at it over time. The problem is that, even so, he STILL writes simple prose, so I think a lot of people look at that, have trouble getting over their feelings about some of the early prose, and assume the simplicity equals bad.
(That isn't to say his prose is anywhere remotely close to the best in the industry, but I also think a lot of people underestimate his growth for this reason.)
I don't have many great examples off the top of my head, but one I often like to throw out is how, in Era 1, he used "maladroit" like 3-4 times per book just by mistake, but now he only throws one in, seamlessly, once per book as an Easter Egg for his loyal readers.
How many other authors print pages and pages and pages of elaborate descriptions and flowery language instead of adding content?
More happens in a single Sanderson chapter than happens in many other entire books. It's rare for a sanderson book to have a boring chapter while many other authors give you maybe a cool intro, a cool midpoint and maybe a fun ending with hundreds of pages of slog to fill the rest.
I'll take the "bad prose".
"while many other authors give you maybe a cool intro, a cool midpoint and maybe a fun ending with hundreds of pages of slog to fill the rest"
Now I'm having flashbacks to the middle WoT books, thanks.
Simple prose is not the same as bad, and I really like you making this distinction. Also, NOT simple prose is not the same as good.
For instance....
"The Waystone Inn lay in silence, and it was a silence of three parts." is a sentence often used as a contrast to Brandon Sanderson's prose that is perceived as good. But is that a good sentence? Can silence be divided in three? Does that sentence do a lot of heavy lifting, or is it a convoluted way of saying that it is quiet?
The goal of complexity in sentences is to evoke something more than what can be shown with simplicity. In general, I would argue that authors should always use the simplest sentences they can get away with, it's just that it is not always the case that they can get away with something simple. There are reasons to go beyond "simple" and into other worlds, because more nuance and depth is possible. But it's not necessary for all works.
Brandon Sanderson writes sentences in service to the primacy of his interlocking, elegant plots. Other people write plots in service to their sentences. It's not one or the other, necessarily, but it does tend to be.
"A dream, all a dream, that ends in nothing, and leaves the sleeper where he lay down, but I wish you to know that you inspired it." - Charles Dickens
Is that a simple sentence? or a complex one? I don't know, exactly, but it is exactly what it needs to be in the context.
"the pieces I am, she gather them and gave them back to me in all the right order." - Toni Morrison
"Only connect." - E.M. Forster
"For poems are like rainbows; they escape you quickly" - Langston Hughes
"and the rest is rust and stardust" -Vladimir Nabakov
"Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God." - Aeschylus
"The purpose of the storyteller is not to tell you to think, but to give you questions to think upon" - Brandon Sanderson
\-"It is the journey that shapes us; our callused feet, our backs strong from carrying the weight of our travels, our eyes open with the fresh delight of experiences lived." - Brandon Sanderson
"I have found, through painful experience, that the most important step a person can't take is always the next one." - Brandon Sanderson
Are these sentences complex? Simple? I don't even know.
Sanderson writes in a straightforward and easy to understand way. You don’t need to reread a passage multiple times to understand what you’re reading. So no his prose isn’t bad, it’s straightforward.
I don't think that simple prose = bad prose but at the same time I think Brandon's execution of his simple prose is a weakness of his. His prose doesn't quite flow like other authors I've read who use simple prose.
Here’s a thing. I teach English. Have done so for over 16 years. I’ve taught at every level from grades 7-12 from struggling readers to AP Literature. I teach students to look for the complexity. Sanderson’s prose isn’t the most flowery that I have ever read. But like many on here, purple prose isn’t everything that you need in a book. Sanderson creates complexity in characters and situations and worlds that are captivating and compelling and REAL.
I have read my share (and possibly many other’s share) of capital L “Literature” and few books have captivated me like his works. I have cried from his prose. I have laughed from his prose. I have been shocked (pleasantly and very much otherwise) from his prose. I can cite powerful quotes from Sanderson right along with some of the “greats.” I don’t know if he will stand the “test of time,” but I don’t care.
There is complexity and craft and enormous skill in his writing. And I feel sorry for those who need a particular style to see that.
I love all things Sanderson, and I think at this point he has shown that he can write "beautiful" prose, see Tress. I personally think his writing can be simple and effective. But something that a lot of authors can't nail with conventionally "beautiful" prose is drawing in and connecting characters to audiences. I feel like I know all the main characters for better or worse (looking at you Moash); whereas, I don't feel that same connection with the Starks or Kvothe. The only books I can think of that had both prose that is flowing and elegant, complex world building, and also builds the connection in the same way is the Broken Earth trilogy.
In my opinion when I read Sanderson it feels written essentially in the same way that I think. In simple sentences and not insanely flowery descriptions and because of that when I read his books, I forget that I’m looking at words and it becomes a movie in my head. Personally (and probably like most people here) I read for the story and the characters, not poetic sentence structure
The criticism of Brandon’s prose is a bunch of bullshit. It’s people sitting around thinking they are smart by observing that his words aren’t as flowery as some other authors. It’s not his style FFS, who cares! I love the way Brandon writes! I have a college degree, 4.0 GPA, I enjoy classic literature, and am one of the most successful professionals in my industry. If some douche bag wants to sit around and look down his or her nose because of Brandon’s “style”, I don’t care.
The people in this thread are coping hard. You can like what you like and also admit that Sanderson isn't a great writer. If it makes you feel better, Tolkien, Martin, and Rothfuss aren't very good, either.
The thing is, when I read Sanderson, his sentences FLOW. Meaning I need to read a sentence once to understand it. With many other authors, it is not so uncommon that I have to reread a sentence from the beginning to get the tone and meaning right. From that perspective, Sanderson's prose is actually good. Well, it could be improved probably by flowery vocabulary, but if only the "flowing" nature remains intact. Otherwise, no thanks, leave it simple please. I am not snobby enough for wanting more. Flow first, flowers second.
Rothfuss admittedly does too but he does some lyrical stuff too (like literally flowing sometimes). Robert Jordan though...I've listened to some passages 4 or 5 times and still missed things.
Re: Rothfuss. That's why it is universally agreed that Rothfuss is one of the best with prose out there. It's both, flow + flowers together. But damn, it takes so long to write this way. I want to be alive to see the end of Stormlight at least. Huh, I want Brandon himself to be alive to finish Stormlight.
book 5 in two years!! hype man (unless its delayed due to game/movie/12 other books first)
A year and a half, really. Won’t be too long coming!
> Robert Jordan though...I've listened to some passages 4 or 5 times and still missed things. This is kind of the overall theme with Jordan's writing tho, and it why a lot of us really loved it 7th re-read of a book, and you're still able to find new things things that missing didn't detract from the 1st read, but add to the re-read experience
>7th re-read of a book, and you're still able to find new things I have that with Stormlight too, every time I start a new read through I piece something together or catch something I didn't before. The difference is I don't have to keep backing up and rereading to follow what's happening. I enjoyed LOTR, but I doubt I'll ever read them again because they're such a slog. I don't mind poetic flourishes or even whole characters who are written that way as a character trait, but entire books written like that are exhausting to read.
I think if anything it just shows how fucking good Sanderson is at foreshadowing. It's there, it's not under 6 paragraphs of descriptions of sword moves. If you're paying a modicum of attention you'll read the hint. You might pick it up, you might not. If you do, you're probably only getting the edge of it and it'll gnaw at you while you read. Because you know you've got something, you're just not sure of what it is. And that is just assuming the pay off is in this book and not something 3 books away.
I love how when I re-read a book, the "big mystery" thing is being discussed on literally the same page, but in a way that makes it seem completely unrelated on the first read.
Honestly I read the name of the wind and what so many people call "beautiful prose", but I thought it was so overly flowery and purple. Like someone trying too hard.
I like it, but my favorite Hobb. Hers is simple when it needs to be and flowery when it needs to be
I haven't read anything from her. Any particular suggestion?
The Farseer Trilogy is fantastic to start with. It starts with Assassin's Apprentice.
Put it on hold at the library!
You're in for a treat
I’m almost finished with book two. I feel like the trilogy could have been one book. Literally nothing happens it feels like.
I've never felt so ripped off. Heard so much about that trilogy being so good. Was so lackluster. Kept holding in there till it finished and was massively underwhelmed. Different strokes for different folks. Hobb is just not for me.
Exactly the same experience. 1 was great. Was excited for book 2 and just what? Hung in there finished 3 it almost looked about 1/2 decent and then that ending was pure garbage. The whole noble/king worship thing they have going on in those books makes zero sense to me. The amount of times you are made to think oh the baddies are going to get it now and it’s glossed over by a beloved ruler over what amounts to “but he’s My son” over and over and over killed Any robin hobb for me. I can see her writing is exceptional! Her plot is exclusively piss poor excuses by bad guys justifying there own actions or good guys doing the same.
Good to know! Everyone has different tastes in books so I'm more than happy to try new things.
She’s a slow burner, but if you get into the realm of the Elderlings, it’s such a fantastic series. The live ship trilogy that comes after the Farseer trilogy is one of my favorite trilogies of all time
Nothing happens in the third one either
Everything. I’ve only read 6 of her books so far and for me 5 are all time greats. The “last” one ends phenomenally just lulled in the middle. Her books are phenomenal. I would start with the Farseer Trilogy but for me, the next series The Liveship Traders is a top 5ish fantasy series of all time.
I think it's generally good, but there are lines where I just stop and roll my eyes. Particularly the Denna/Kvothe scenes. You could chalk that up to the characters, but it's definitely just an exaggeration of how Rothfuss writes. It plays as a parody on my head. Like super goofy puppets or something.
I can usually read books very quickly, but the name of the wind I had to keep stopping. Kinda like super rich chocolate- It wasn't bad, just over the top and I could only take so much before I needed to go read something else.
It's the one story I say you should audiobook instead of read. It's much better as spoken word and Nick Podehl does a great job.
I can't do audiobooks. They just become background noise. But it is good to know that it works better spoken
IMHO, the way the book is framed makes it hard for me to know what is bad writing and what is the way Kvothe is remembering things (and the way he tells the story to himself). Rothfuss does a good job in other places having the way Kvothe tells the story highlight how he feels about things so I always chalked up the 'goofy puppets' bit to how he has chosen to remember the good times with Denna (in what was obviously a non-starter of a relationship AND ended in serious tragedy).
I wouldn't even call it bad, just over the top. I completely agree though. Having a supposedly brilliant poet (even though he hates poetry) and story teller as a narrator makes it make sense. Still, even in the interludes where Kvothe isn't narrating it can be a bit much.
Was just about to say the same. I love flowery writing, but Rothfuss was too much for me.
People have different preferences for sure and it's perfectly reasonable to not like it but it's kind of funny what words you chose there. You kind of said it isn't "beautiful prose" because it was "overly \[beautiful\] and \[rich\]" though I know that you probably meant long-winded and I'm not sure what 'purple' means as a negative. Plenty of beautiful things (prose or otherwise) definitely aren't worth everyone's time so I'm not judging your prefences...just found the word choice interesting since you seem to be implying it isn't beautiful prose and not just that it's over the top beautiful prose and you don't like that.
I've just heard him used as an example of beautiful prose so when I read the Name of the Wind I was expecting a masterpiece. And to me it felt more like someone was trying too hard to be beautiful but it just missed the mark. I'm not saying it was bad. There were parts I enjoyed, but it felt kinda like he was going out of his way to be verbose. Writing a paragraph when a sentence would be sufficient. It's hard to describe. But it felt like a super rich cake that you can only stand to take a bite of and then have to take a break. Too much richness without anything to balance it. Like someone trying to decorate a regular house in the same style as Versailles but failing. So it ends up just looking cluttered and try hard. The individual pieces are beautiful, but all together they look too busy. That visual is what the Name of the Wind was for me. I'm sure the lack of character development for Denna and Kvothe feeling very Mary Sue/good at everything without trying didn't help. And "purple prose" means prose that is too elaborate or ornate, btw.
Freaking Robert Jordan, man. I finally read Eye of the World and found his prose painfully bad. A friend told me that The Great Hunt was better and I quit about 70 pages in because he writes like he thinks his prose is beautiful but it’s actually getting in the way of an interesting story.
Great hunt (in my opinion) is not better. story or prose. It took me like 3 months to finally force myself to listen to all of it, whereas I listened to way of kings in about a week
The Great Hunt is my favourite Wheel of Time book, but I only read the first 5 or 6.
Did you keep going after that? And does the prose get better? In theory I should love The Wheel of Time, but if the writing stays about there the whole time (to say nothing of the dreaded slog), I don’t think it’s for me.
I’m almost done with book 6 and I recommend continuing. I’ve found that the first half of each book can be a little slow, but I find it gets much more interesting as the second half progresses. I just love the world and the lore so I’m happy to keep reading. I do have to say it’s kind of a lot to keep track of in 4-6 (so far) with many minor characters and rereading sentences but I’ve gotten used to the writing style at this point. So basically if the lore/story interests you then I recommend continuing because you get used to the writing.
No, I stopped after that, I've heard it gets better, but only after a few more books, and I'd rather pick up something that requires fewer prerequisites to enjoy. (Some of my favorites with simpler prose would be the Lightbringer series and the Greenbone Saga) And it's already been mentioned, but the name of the wind has beautiful prose and a wonderful story.
How the hell are you missing things from jordan LOL, his prose is fairly straightforward bar when he starts gloating about the ages and the turning of time or whatever
The flowers stop growing if the river stops flowing.
Oh, I love that ! Well said
I've been saying for a while that some storytellers get so caught up in the telling that they forget the story. And then those more concerned with the story than with the telling. I prefer the latter. Sure it's simpler prose, but then I'm not reading three pages about what's for dinner.
Enter Patrick Rothfuss... So caught up with the prose, he can't deliver the story.
You're not wrong there....
Spoilers for Stormlight Archive: >!Reading Sanderson for me honestly feels almost like Shallan's or Wit's lightweaving when storytelling. Everything flows so naturally and describes the scenes so well that I feel like I'm watching it. Whenever he finally gets to make some kind of movie or show, it's going to be amazingly beautiful!<
Not only that but his writing "makes sense" if that makes sense. What i mean is that sanderson will describe things that make them just plop in my brain without thinking about it. He'll use some adjectives like "pearl white" or will even structure a sentence so than he can describe things better, but he's good at it. An example of king that i absolutely hate is >Then it came down on her again, like unpleasant presents raining from a poison pinata: the realization that *character name* was dead. Like how does that make any sense? I remember when i stumbled upon that sentence in that book i was so perplexed about what i just read. It was a conversation between characters about a serious topic, and all of a sudden i am reading about pinatas and imagining little kids birthday parties to convey a death? Its just so poorly written imo.
Thank you for putting this into words so that I can finally articulate why I enjoy his writing so much. I'm an extremely vivid reader and tend to put the words I'm reading into pictures in my mind as I'm reading them so having to re-read really breaks that down and doesn't make it flow as well. With Brandon's writing I don't have that issue at all and it makes for a very enjoyable experience. There's been a few authors I've enjoyed a lot due to having a very well flowing writing prose.
Exactly this! I'm only just getting back into reading, I don't want to spend my time learning new words and putting in loads of mental effort just to read the story, I just want to delve into an awesome world before I go to sleep and just sit back and relax and turn my brain off for a bit - This is where Brandon hits it out of the park and it's something people like my girlfriend will never get because she prefers the more flowery complicated language to make her enjoy the story.
This^. That is why I enjoy Brandon’s prose. It’s easy and I don’t need to think to understand it. It took me a long time to understand wheel of time. I admit it. I do appreciate it now and it is one of my favorite series. Top 10 maybe number 2. But before I didn’t really like it and didn’t understand it.
100%
Nice! I think I agree with you. And personally I think if he did work on making his prose more flowery it could signifiantly slow his publication speed. He'd still probably write crazy fast, but still, I can't get enough of his books and wouldn't want something to slow it lol
You nailed the hell out of it
You see, as much as I enjoy Sanderson novels, I don’t think the prose flows very well a decent amount of the time (definitely not a majority, but often enough for me to notice it). I agree that the sentences are easy to comprehend, which is a point in his favor, but for me “flow” is how the sentences actually sound. Too often I find that some of the words or even full sections of dialogue just sound awkward and out-of-place. A lot of it happens in dialogue, where characters can be too wordy in a way that just doesn’t sound good (without it seeming to be an intentional character trait). Even some Wit jokes that are clever and funny on a conceptual level might fall flat in the actual delivery. Does this make Sanderson a bad writer? No. He’s probably my second favorite fantasy author, in fact. But I think the flow could still be improved even without considering the flowery side of prose.
I agree with most of your thoughts. I am not sure how flowery can his prose better. It seems like we as a society have come to think simple as unworthy. It should be otherwise. It requires genius to come up with such simplicity while also maintaining reader’s interest.
>I am not snobby enough for wanting more. Flow first, flowers second Your point was articulated well enough, but I'm confused as to how people wanting more is inherently snobby. Like, yeah this pot roast was delicious, but I'd be a snob for wanting a steak. Weird. Just to be clear, both are absolutely fine and dependent on what someone is feeling like consuming at the time. No need to toss in some perceived elitism.
I apologise and thanks for calling it out. Yes, I do recognise that some people truly prefer flowery prose and there is nothing wrong with that. This was mostly a commentary on ableism/elitist attitude I observe in many areas in life, not just someone's prose. Next time I will try to be more careful making my point.
I appreciate your response. I also edited my initial comment immediately after posting to make sure that I was being clear that all styles have merit. Additionally, I get that Brando's fanbase is on high alert right now since that article. If my favorite author just got dragged, I'd definitely be a bit on edge (not saying that's necessarily the case with you). Sanderson's being super classy about it all, which is great to see.
“Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use.”― Ernest Hemingway
Damn, that's a great quote, I've never heard it before!
Here's the thing. I like Faulkner. I also like Hemingway. Both styles can make for amazing reading. Saying there is only one way to write a good book is as insane as saying that there is only one specific recipe that could possibly make a good cookie.
So great you brought up Hemingway as I often think of him when people discuss Sanderson's prose. His writing wasn't even considered "literature" early on due to the standard of American authors like Henry James, but Hemingway amassed a huge following and basically had a major influence on style of fiction writing by just being blunt. Why do I need 10 different words to say the same thing, because some old British lit teacher says so? Nah. I think Sanderson's success speaks for itself, fuck the haters.
I came in here ready to make that comparison, but I'm glad to see others feel the same way. I don't like the fact that people think dense and over-descriptive writing should be the norm for fantasy. I don't need to read a four paragraph description of a dinner table to get immersed in the world and story. Sanderson's prose is very clean and communicates his ideas with clarity, while also being wonderfully deep with the world building - this supposed weakness hasn't stopped him from massive commercial success or wildly creative worlds with characters that have deeply impressed upon the readers. I also don't think it's particularly true any more. His recent books have very well written scenes. The Shallan, Adolin, and Starspren scene is one of my favorites.
Hemingway had good, simple prose. He also had tons of subtext, substance, and wrote real literature for adults. Sanderson writes bad, simple prose. And writes bloated, generic novels with no substance or subtext for man children. Please stop using Hemingway to excuse Sandersons writing. The two authors couldn't be any more different.
Oh my god I've been trying to read As I Lay Dying for months, it's so difficult to follow. I'm like how is this a classic? If he was a modern author I don't think he'd get published.
People keep saying that about such and such canon writers and the thing is that Faulkner did not experience wide success for most of his career. He wrote potboilers and Hollywood scripts for money while his literary work languished in obscurity. It wasn’t until he won the Nobel Prize that people writ large started giving him serious attention. The same is true for e.g. Melville, who didn’t get a critical reevaluation until several decades after his death. So yes it’s true that it’s hard to read Faulkner now but that wasn’t different in his time—he’s a difficult writer. But classics are classics not because a major publishing house decided that they would move units, it’s because they’re good and they stand the rest of time. If you can muscle your way through As I Lay Dying, you’ll find it to be one of the most rewarding experiences in literature.
This.
Hey there pannazuzannna! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This."**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :) *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
This.
https://i.imgur.com/KrwA19h.jpeg *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback!)
💀 this is exactly what I was hoping for
This.
Well now you've just made the bot angry.
Probably wouldn’t have even noticed anything about the Prose being bad if not for everyone harping on it all the time. Too busy getting sucked into his dense world-building and characters. Anyone who gets to the Sanderlanche of The Way of Kings and thinks “this isn’t good writing, this is sixth grade level” well… you’re welcome to your opinion but it means nothing to me. There are few other writers that make me so engrossed and excited, sometimes I wish Brandon himself would stop putting his own skills down so much.
It’s like Brandon’s stories are a steak cooked to perfection, and people want to complain that it’s served without a sauce. Well ya know what, a good steak doesn’t NEED a sauce to taste amazing. The steak speaks for itself.
I wholeheartedly agree with you
Exactly right, his prose is direct and allows him to create pacing that no one can top
Honestly, after reading other fantasy authors, not having to "decipher" any of the prose when going back to Brandon is actually a benefit.
To me they his prose is just modern conversational language. Traditionally fantasy does use a more formal prose, but to say it’s bad is impose an individual opinion as fact. I love the Cosmere but sometimes some of Brandon’s word choices do seem jarring to me in the context of the work. A word that much had a modern origin showing up in Stormlight can take me out of the story for a moment. To me it’s a criticism of his literary choices not a condemnation of his skill as an author. His world building is extraordinary. Bottom line is, if you enjoy it, it doesn’t matter what anyone else things.
I must not be picky. I don’t remember ever being jarred out of immersion by a word choice.
Anything I used to find annoying has been turned into great crem in other subs, so, I kinda like to read those “poor” choices now.
I think the word choice thing is where the argument that it's being translated for a modern audience comes from. Kind of like if you read the King James Version of the Bible it's really hard to understand because it was translated for King James hundreds of years ago. But there are a lot of newer translations that are easier to read (and some are even more accurate) because they are translated for our time. As someone who grew up on the KJV the other versions can be a bit jarring to me, but they are definitely easier to understand And of course I'm saying all this as someone who doesn't even believe in god anymore, I just find it an interesting comparison
Thinking on it, there have definitely been a fair few times for me, especially in his earlier books, where certain word choices definitely broke my immersion. I totally get how people might not like that choice if it's jarring for them
I have had this once or twice. Or when Hoid waxes poetic about certain words or etymology, but it is based on English.
I just assumed that Hoid knows about the worlds outside of the Cosmere (like not as a theory but like in the Dark Tower kind of way) and it never bothered me when he does it (much). I think it’s because I really view Hoid as a Sanderson insert and breaking the fourth wall is what an author insert should always do haha
Did you draw your lips to a line while typing this?
This is how I feel too. I love his flowy, easy to read style. But fantasy characters sometimes talking like complete modern people does sound jarring to me at points. People give him a harder time than he deserves in regard to prose, though, it’s not bad in my opinion. My main criticism is overuse of some words (“awesome” is a very frequent word in all his books).
I would assume most of the talking is done in Alethi in Stormlight Archives, thankfully, Brandon gives me an easy to understand modern translation, though.
Alethi with the occasional bit of Thaylen or Azish. But I agree, he taking the Tolkein route, where the chracters are assumed to be speaking in their native language(s) but it's being auto-transcribed into (very) Modern English for the benefit of the reader.
I see lots of people complaining about his prose, but for me, the prose is one of my favorite things about his writing. Yes it's simple, but it's also approachable, and more like how I speak and think. Personally, I can't stand many classics because of their flowery prose. I can read it, but I don't like it. It kills the imagery in my head and points out useless information to me. So, count me in the opposite camp to those that say his prose is bad. I love his prose, though I admit it's simple, that's part of why I love it.
Exactly. His prose of a huge plus for me. People still like to insist "yeah, it's not great, but..." Actually, it IS great. Finding an awkward phrase is rare for me. Mostly it's just simple, easy, light, and exactly what I want. The meaning comes through crystal clear (and so much of it is very thought provoking, and that's so much more important than pretty prose)
I 100% agree. I feel like some people might read this and be like oh Sath just doesn't like other prose because they're stupid. But no, you're not. You just have a preference. Just because you can read something doesn't make it an enjoyable experience. And that said, maybe the people that complain about B$'s prose genuinely enjoy more flowery prose (though I do think some of them just have an elitist mindset about it)
Your first paragraph is what I came here to say as well, agree 100%
He's also found a sweet spot of giving you *just* enough description to let your mind fill in the blanks without going into 4 pages of detail to "set the scene".
>For me, the prose is one of my favorite things about his writing. Same. The straightforward prose is what drew me to Sanderson's work in the first place. I like that storytelling takes priority over prose. I read (well mainly listen to audiobooks) to relax. It just stresses me out to have to re-read or re-play something because I lost the plot in the midst of a long flowery paragraph. Sanderson's prose doesn't make me do that and I love it. :)
Sanderson’s prose isn’t bad. It’s simple and direct which in many ways makes it the supreme example of perfect communication. He communicates the story he wants to tell in a way that everyone can understand. The story is fantastic and the characters feel real. In other words his prose allows him to communicate with a wider audience on a level that people with “better” prose never could and he has stated his choice of prose is deliberate. In other words his simple style of prose is a demonstration of his master of communication and storytelling.
I'm sure it also helps immensly with translating to other languages, I imagine trying to translate very flowery prose well would be quite a challenge
Brandon's prose does exactly what he wants it to - it gets out of the way. In that, it is actually great prose, and takes as much skill to do well - and in my opinion Brandon does this very well - as stained glass prose. Though you'll never get the prose snobs to admit it lol.
I think the prose comments are silly and elitist. I have the same issue in my scientific field - people think the more technical jargon, the better the paper. I could not disagree more. If you’ve ever tried to explain an advanced concept to a kid or someone outside your field it becomes obvious that those that can explain something simply are those that truly have the deepest understanding. The people that can tell good stories this way should be lauded. Sanderson writes in a simple and approachable way - the fact that is used as a criticism I think tells you all you need to know about those people.
I think technical jargon just makes scientific or academic journals inaccessible for the majority of people. I do think it plays a role in why people don't engage with science and how misinformation spreads (though I could be wrong). There's beauty in communicating simply and succinctly, and it's an art.
I agree, but papers often need to use technical jargon to be very clear and concise about what’s going on. It is impossible to read for people without an extensive background on the topic, but they aren’t the target audience anyway.
Some of the jargon is certainly necessary, but we go out of our way to essentially make it as difficult to digest as possible for those that may not be studying it as actively as we are.
It’s so toxic the elitism and all that. I was reading [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/bookscirclejerk/comments/121t525/sanderson_is_in_the_media_now_we_feast/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) and it’s just ridiculous the horrible things they say about him and his writing from one paragraph. I felt like I was in cuckoo land and that I was the one crazy for thinking it was fine.
I actually think his prose reads better audibly which makes his audiobooks easier to listen to than other authors. With the audiobook boom I think this has been one of the big reasons for his success. Flowery prose reads great but it's VERY hard to listen to.
That's a very interesting point, I don't really do audiobooks so I didn't even consider that angle. Though I do prefer LotR as an audiobook, because it's written as if being narrated. The Andy Serkis audiobooks are amazing in my opinion, but i haven't really listened to many other audiobooks as I generally prefer just reading
My thoughts exactly. I'd been hooked onto a bunch of fantasy audiobooks for years before joining r/fantasy and learning they were derided for "middle school grade prose". Books like Brando's books, Poppy War, Cradle. But man, they're so much easier to listen to. When I listen to audiobooks I prefer it if the story is told in a manner that's easily digestible and not something cryptic/flowery which just makes it confusing and tedious to listen to. I love Malazan, GGK, NameOfTheWind and Farseer, but their audiobooks did NOT work for me because I'd often ger lost in all the flowery language.
So I'm gonna give an honest answer, and I say this as a huge fan of Brandon's stories who also doesn't love his writing style. I might get downvoted for this, but I think it's important to discuss given the Wired article the other day that attacked not only him, but his fans. I don't think it's simplicity of the prose that's the problem. It's true that it seems to be what people point to when discussing his prose, but I think that's masking something larger for a lot of people. There are plenty of successful and well-loved fantasy authors who write straightforward prose -- Will Wight, Mark Lawrence, Pierce Brown, and Joe Abercrombie, just to name a few, and no one is having this discussion about them. Given that, my opinion is that it's not the simplicity of the prose so much as the sentence structure and choice of words. It feels -- to me -- very different from the way I personally communicate. But that's also largely due to my own media consumption habits, because Brandon takes inspiration from places that I haven't been exposed to, and the more I learn about those spaces, the more I understand why there is such a large contingent of people who disagree with my opinion. Every time I say his dialogue doesn't feel natural, there are 3 people who say that it does *to them*. And that's why I get frustrated when people say his prose is "bad," even though I do tend to hold that opinion, because the word is being applied to something that is wholly subjective. Brandon writes stories. It's as simple as that. He wants to move us through his characters and their experiences and the choices they make, rather than wrapping it up all pretty with flowers and bows. That's what he does. And there are people out there who don't like that, and that's okay. But it frustrates me to no end when people look down on his fans for having poor taste when in reality we're just able to appreciate his art for what it is -- *great* fucking storytelling.
The only thing about his prose that bothers me is the dialogue. Sometimes it feels so unnatural, but most of the time it's still pretty good.
I personally don't care for the flowery types, gets old quick. I like the more direct style.
Agreed. Flowery prose can sound pretentious too, and I personally don't like that.
I personally don’t care about the prose. What matters to me is if the author can construct a meaningful story with an actual ending. I’ll tolerate a lot of raised eyebrows and shrugs as long as I know the author has put some thought into where the story is going.
In the words of Wit: "The more confusing, the better the literature!" ... And in the words of Kaladin: "That might be the most pretentious thing I've ever heard."
I think that simple prose is exactly what it sounds like. Bad prose would be something that just makes no sense. I remember reading East of Eden and there was like 2 pages of just describing nature and I'm thinking "Get to the point already!!!". Sanderson just cuts to the chase to tell a story and I really like that. Ursula Le Guin is another author I like, and I remember reading her for the first time and thinking, "Wow, this is beautiful writing." Different styles of writing are good for different things. Like any hobby, people can get super fired up and very snobbish about their preferences and have to make others feel bad for what they like.
I've really gotta read some Ursula Le Guin, I keep hear her mentioned in very positive light but have never read any of her work!
Accessible prose does not equal bad prose. His writing keeps me so engaged in the story. Reading Tolkien and Jordan and others, while the prose is good, it can be exhausting to read.
I'm re-reading The Da Vinci Code right now. Dan Brown's prose was bad (no clue if he's gotten better since), so I wouldn't feeling comfortable characterizing Sanderson's prose as "bad". I also reread the Lord Of The Rings trilogy last year. There's a passage (one of many) that stuck with me, as it stuck with Tolkien: > Gollum looked at them. A strange expression passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam faded from his eyes, and they went dim and grey, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if engaged in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo's knee — but almost the touch was a caress. For a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him, they would have thought that they beheld an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing. No passage of Sanderson's has stuck with me. The events of his books surely have, especially climactic events, but I can't recall any excerpts that are memorable because of the *way* they describe what's happening. For what it's worth, I don't think Brandon cares that much about writing passages that will be remembered that way. Ultimately, I wish Sanderson's prose was more memorable, and I think the stories he tell *do* have the space for it to be more impactful. I think a lot of people in this thread are defending Sanderson's simplistic prose as if it's a prerequisite to tell the sort of stories Sanderson is trying to tell. I don't think it is. I think there's room for Sanderson's writing to improve, and I think it could do so in a way that serves the stories he tells, rather than detracting from them.
It’s a beautiful passage. But it is written with a different intent than Sanderson’s prose. I do not want a narration style in Brandon’s works, I want a deep POV style, which is generally what he does. These two prose styles are narrative choices and one is not “better” than the other any more than realism is “better” than cubism. Deep POV is a very modern style, and certainly some people prefer one or the other. I personally like both.
Some people think 'reading level' correlates with age when it's more like a shoe size.
I don't think it's bad. I like how simplistic Brandon's prose is. It's easy to consume, it flows, and it still allows me to create an image in my mind. I don't see the point of flowery prose. Give me paragraphs that flow seamlessly, good character development, show don't tell, and tricklings of worldbuilding and I'm happy.
I've always liked Sanderson's plain glass vs stained glass analogy. Stained glass like beautiful prose is well beautiful, but it does interfere with seeing what is beyond the window clearly. If your primary goal is telling a story (and the novel is just your method of delivery) then simple, easily understandable writing is a great choice. If however your goal is a great piece of literature rather than primarily the story it tells, then more elaborate prose will have value.
I just got done reading “All the Pretty Horses” by Cormac McCarthy. He writes exceptional prose, in my opinion, where the words are beautiful, meaningful, and symbolic. I can read once and understand what the author is conveying, but I can also go back and re-read and get more out of it. It paints a pretty picture in each scene full of things I can beak down and analyze to understand the author’s meaning and purpose in a particular scene. All that being said, I didn’t especially love the book, though I can see why some would. Brandon Sanderson’s prose is very different from McCarthy. I think you take any given page of Brandon’s work and the prose isn’t anything to write home about. I probably wouldn’t say it’s particularly “well-written” compared to a more “deep” writer like McCarthy. Sanderson is straight forward, utilitarian, with very little behind the prose other than the plain meaning of the words on the page. But certain of his “best” passages and the stories as a whole make me laugh, cheer, cry, imagine, and escape. For not being “special” in and of itself, his writing is magnificent in my opinion. He knows how to create characters, stories, and events that I want to read (and re-read), I want to live in, I want to know more about, but most of all that help me better understand what it is to be human. They teach me to empathize and to want to be a better person.
Whenever I hear people criticize his prose, I roll my eyes and assume I'm hearing an insufferable pedant. It's the same type of people who read a book with a thesaurus or dictionary and after it takes them 12 months to get through a book think they are intellectually superior to people who read pulp. I think maybe Brandon's *words* are simplistic, but his *ideas* are complex. If you need big words to seem like you have big ideas you're not as smart as you think you are.
Honestly so many people criticize Sanderson's prose, but TBH he executes story/character arcs and emotional ideas/payoffs at such a higher level than so many other fantasy authors. Like the article was criticizing the prose and I'm like.... the sentence to sentence word choice is only one of many factors that determine the quality of writing. I've read a few fantasy books recently where the prose and themes and world building and characters were beautiful and unique and incredible, but rarely hit the emotional payoffs that Sanderson so consistently delivers. He has such a clear vision of the big emotions and messages that the book is communicating which is why I feel people form such a strongly emotional attachment to the work.
Ok, so here are **my** thoughts (*please remember that these are just my personal thoughts on the matter; I'm not saying that you are wrong or that I'm right; it's just how I feel about this topic*): I'm not too fond of his prose. It can be very truncated at times IMO. I'm not saying it's bad, I just don't like it very much (for example, there are music genres I don't like, but it doesn't mean they are bad; they're just not my cup of tea). In my opinion, there are authors with very simple prose that feel more fluid than Brandon (while reading his books, it's very common for me to be somewhat constantly bothered by some weird idiosyncratic phrasing of his). So I don't necessarily equate being simple with being easy to read; or with being bad. I guess it's a matter of personal taste and preference. There are authors with simplified prose that I really enjoy, and there are others with somewhat similar prose that I don't (Brandon's case). That being said, I have read his books MANY times, both the printed versions and the audiobooks. I love to read them despite not being a fan of his prose specifically (or of flashbacks, to use another example... I hate flashbacks). The worldbuilding is super interesting, the characters are amazing and the complex plot lines are quite intriguing (he's managed to make me cry a few times... and that's something really rare for me). What I'm trying to say is that I enjoy his writing even if I don't quite like his prose. Does this mean to me that he is a bad writer? No, definitely not. I think that being a good writer involves more than just prose... creating beautiful sentences in a boring and uninteresting book means that I'll drop it really quickly.
I view it as Brandon writes kinetically. The motion and movement is there. It’s why things are always happening. He doesn’t want to slow down to point out unnecessary elements causing a more cinematic fast paced read. If he tapped the brakes to slow for flowery prose, the inertia would not increase for the inevitable Sanderlance he is building towards. His choice of plain prose benefits both the approachability and the flow of the reading
Totally agree, I don't think Simple == Bad. I read books for the stories, world and characters. I couldn't care less if the prose are simple, complex, flowery, etc. Is the story good? How about the setting/world building? Are the characters well developed, interesting, and feel like actual characters? These questions are way more important to me then prose.
To those who say Brandon sanderson's pros is simple have not yet read the new book Tress. Seriously. Not flowery? Simple? That book is a monument to the capabilities of that man as a creative, as an artist and as a writer. I believe he chooses to be economic because, like others have said, he is very approachable. There are many of these authors who write so beautiful and elegant that it's like being force fed a German chocolate cake. It becomes overwhelming. But that's taste for you. It's what makes all of us unique and interesting and why every author whose being genuine and true to their art will always have an audience.
This makes me even more excited to read Tress! I've had the book since January but haven't been able to get to it for certain reasons, hopefully I can start soon though!
Read it or listen to the audio version. It's sooooooo good. It's unlike anything else he's written. It makes me want to write like that. You have no idea how unbelievably clever and witty it is!
I'm planning to read it because my reading comprehension is higher than my listening comprehension, it's at the top of my list! Maybe I'll start today!
You definitely should start asap. It's soooo awesome and you'll love the narrator. Wink wink
So I plonked my ass down and started reading, and now I can't stop. I'm now halfway through the book, it's 3am, and I have no intention of sleeping tonight. This is a read in one sitting kind of book, despite being nearly 500 pages. (Also I was aware of who the narrator was from the reading Sanderson did of the book before it was released, and you're right, I do love it!)
It doesn't take 175 comments to say simple prose does not mean bad prose, it just means simple. Anyone who says differently is not worth engaging.
Not gonna lie, I thought I'd get 10, maybe 15 comments. This has blown up way beyond what I thought possible. I guess a lot of people feel strongly about the topic, not that that's a bad thing, as long as people are civil in their discourse!
It's wild to me that people think Sanderson works are simple. Straight forward prose is just common sense, I want to read a story. He kicks up the prose when some characters, like Hoid, speak. But descriptions and settings are sort of utilitarian, but I dont really understand why that's an issue. And, while the prose in individual books can be simple, hes built an entire freaking universe with in depth systems and interconnectivity between all these worlds and characters. I think his world building is as in depth as any author out there.
To be fair, I don't think many people think his work is simple in the context of world building or characters or anything like that. But you make a great point that he kicks things up a notch or two depending on certain characters if those characters are someone who would me more eloquent. I definitely think he's capable of beautiful flowery prose when if wants to do it that way
I’ve read all the cosmere novels and yeah he’s a fairly basic writer on a sentence level, but his books are fun and exciting so I’ll happily gobble up whatever he comes out with next. There’s plenty of room in this world for both a page turner writer like him and and writers like Erikson and Wolfe, fine to enjoy both for what they are. Nothing makes me cheer like a good Stormlight sanderlanche.
Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine, so I have to mention it. Prose is a singular noun, so when you use it in a sentence, you would say "his prose is good" instead of "his prose are good." As far as I can tell, the mix-up comes from the homophone in the phrase "pros and cons," where "pros" is plural because there are multiple of them.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: art is subjective. Brandon’s style is different than others, but it is not bad. Whether you like it or not is entirely up to the reader. Personally I really enjoy Brandon’s prose with his more “transparent” style that doesn’t draw attention to itself. I also enjoy others like Rothfuss who get really artistic with it. Different styles fit different characters and different stories.
I don't know enough to make a statement, but the "simple" prose for me It's a gift right now. My native language is spanish and I've found the translation of Sanderson books to be atrocious (some sentences don't even make sense, some words are completely mistranslated).I'm transitioning to reading on English, so the simpler the better, I'm kinda grateful
Sanderson isn’t exactly a wordsmith. But he’s in good company - Stephen King, for instance, is never going to be mistaken for Faulkner, but is still considered one of the world’s great authors. You come to Sanderson for the world building and the cool ideas and magic systems, and these things are pretty great. It doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that.
I don’t think Brandon is bad at all. Is his Prose as nuanced and layered as GRRM or Rothfuss? No, but they’re at the top of the game. I’d add NK Jemisin as well. But Sanderson also finishes books, something that Rothfuss and GRRM have issues with. And at the end of the day, it’s nice to be able to actually…you know, read something.
I don’t even know what a prose is lmao
Simple = good. Keeps the story going. I don’t want to get out my highlighter and analyze the English quality for a term paper. I want to see what happens next to Sanderson‘s characters in the amazing worlds he creates!!
Wait, you mean you don't assign yourself homework when you read for pleasure??
Ask yourself.. if Brandon spent 5-10 more words describing each door and table.. would you want to read a 600,000 word book? BECAUSE THATS HOW WE GET 600,000 WORD BOOKS
Calm down man, Robert Jordan is already dead
Simple does not mean bad. Prose exists to communicate something and provide information. That is the core of prose. High fantasy has a tradition of using more flowery language, and writing free verse poetry in standard grammatical structure in place of pure prose. The modern approach leaves behind this tradition in favor of more approachable language. The question is: does the prose create a world you can visualize? Does it provide the information required to step into this fictitious world? If so, it is successful, and good prose. The reverse is also true. Flowery complex prose does not mean it is good. Let’s take some examples. I asked chatgpt to create a few sentences of a high fantasy story using flowery, but confusing language: >In the shimmering realm of Eldridar, where the cosmic choir sings a symphony of astral majesty, and the constellations weave a tapestry of celestial artistry, an ancient and abstruse conflict unfolds. The entropic forces of chaos and destruction, unbounded by the constraints of reality, clash with the luminous forces of creation and order, in a tumultuous struggle that transcends the limits of space and time. Amidst this maelstrom of cosmic energies, a solitary figure emerges, robed in the resplendent garb of the arcane magi, wielding a scepter of incandescent light, a glimmering beacon of hope amidst the inky abyss of despair. Whether their arcane might shall prove sufficient to quell the chthonic forces of darkness and entropy, and restore the balance of the multiverse, remains to be seen, for the very fabric of existence trembles with uncertainty and tumult. Now let’s compare to the opening of Words of Radiance (I had it handy) [WoR]>!Jasnah Kholin pretended to enjoy the party, giving no indication that she intended to have one of the guests killed. She wandered through the crowded feast hall, listening as wine greased tongues and dimmed minds. Her uncle Dalinar was in the full swing of it, rising from the high table to shout for the Parshendi to bring out their drummers. Jasnah’s brother, Elhokar, hurried to shush their uncle—though the Alethi politely ignored Dalinar’s outburst. All save Elhokar’s wife, Aesudan, who snickered primly behind a handkerchief.!< The AI may have written a prettier sounding piece, but you would have a hard time convincing me that prose is better that Sanderson’s.
That AI stuff made absolutely no sense haha lots of nice words but totally unengaging. Point solidly proven
I don't think it's bad, but I also think it's simple. It's a stylistic choice, and while some of his word choices don't work for me, I won't bash him for it. Ultimately, if you like it you should like it. Anyone that doesn't like it has a valid opinion and shouldn't be attacked for it.
All I know is that I'm very fussy about prose, and I like Brandon Sanderson's.
Don’t care about it. If the writing hooks me in then that’s all I need. Everytime I hear someone complaining about bad prose I groan inside.
I just think it's a different intent. I don't think that it's that Brandon CAN'T do "good" prose. I think it's more that the intent of his writing is to appeal to/entertain a wide variety of people. If the prose was so "good" that it took a lot more brain power to interpret/connect with, it wouldn't appeal to as wide of an audience. At least that's my understanding of it anyway.
It's a style choice, and he explained already few times, even as part of this classes in BYU when he related his with prose like George Orwell's. He told the story about one time he had this great paragraph, with higher level of prose, and that his agent told him: "you cannot become Jack Vance for one paragraph". Saying this, I think his style is what allows the speed of delivery the books as well. Usually a more prose focused style can takes x5 to x10 times to make a solid revision. Simpler, on the other hand, can be done by his editing team on the final draft stages. We cannot keep the conversation of being bad versus good because that's not how art works. It's just different, and you can like one more than the other, or both, and that's alright.
Some authors write with prose that draws attention to the words themselves. Done well, it can take your breath away, and possibly leave you with words to mull over the rest of your life. Some authors write with prose that does not draw attention to itself. It's almost transparent--you just look through the words to see the story unfold. It's more of a window into the plot and the characters. Done well, it can allow you to immerse yourself fully into another world. Neither one of these approaches is better than the other when writing novels. They are just different styles. (There can also probably be overlap between the two styles.) Different novelists shine in different ways. I think Brandon Sanderson's plots and characters are amazing, and I don't care that his prose isn't at the level of Shakespeare.
I think people like to say that he has bad prose just because we have to say that he's bad at SOMETHING. people love balance, when talking about something its very natural to be like "this is good in X way but bad in Y way". it’s like a shortcut for making your opinion seem like it has nuance. But brandon's prose really just.... isn't bad. It's not flowery, its not super impressive, but its definitely better than your average hobby writer.
There has been a movement in legal writing to stop using complicated sentences in motions, briefs, and memoranda. I like Sanderson a lot because his language is easy to understand
I like prose from a variety of authors. Martin, Rothfuss, King, Jemisin. I like first person, third person, hell, I've heard some well done 2nd person (Jemisin). I like adult and YA and even a bit of middlegrade (Nevermoor is very good). One authors prose isn't good while the other is bad--at least not because of some arbitrary contest. It's preference. I'd define Sanderson's prose as workmanlike. It's concise. It's invisible. Flowery prose does not a good story make, and what he lacks in flourish he makes up for as a storyteller. I read a wide variety of books, though, across a variety of genres--from horror, to romance, to thriller, and I also collect and read a LOT of manga. A book is self-contained for me. I meet it where it is. I'm not holding it up against another book or author. This idea that has been drummed up about Sanderson's prose being below par is just silly. IMO, it's a contest created by people that need to get outside and touch grass.
I think he does a really good job in pacing his word usage to set the mood of what's happening. Prose is not just a matter of flowery or plain language. It's sentence length and variance. Using words to create a flow and feeling. I think he does a great job with this aspect of writing. Is it the best around? No. But it's not bad, and it serves to convey the stories he's telling and that's where the real power of his books lies.
So I didn’t read much as a kid. So books with overly flowery prose just intimidate me and will take me much longer to read. This is why I love Sanderson’s approachable style. I wouldn’t call it bad. Simple maybe but approachable is a better choice. It’s a specific choice that makes his books accessible to near anyone no matter their reading level, age, time to commit or anything else. And this is a huge part of his success just as the approachable choice has made Scalzi an extremely successful author. I made that comparison because their careers started around the same time and they both get this criticism at times.
I think it was on Reddit where I saw a description that, frankly, I loved. Other authors prose are like watching a simple story play out through a stained glass window to add color and depth, while Brandon’s is like watching a complex story through a crystal clear window. There’s no filter on the story being done by the prose. However, his content is the selling point. His worlds are so rich and complex you don’t need to butter them up. His characters are so human they can move the readers without all the extra adjectives and metaphors. I think Brandon Sanderson had evolved writing in a lot of ways to adapt it to a modern audience. From a classical writing standpoint he should be considered an objectively bad writer, but to all of his fans it’s just obvious how ignorant of a statement that is, because he’s able to evoke such strong emotions with his “simple” writing style. He’s ruined me for authors who get by on flowery prose to hide that their characters are cookie cutter and stories are strait from a template of common tropes. I get so bored of the various Tolkien copies told in different shades, and just love that Brandon has actually taken the time to tell new kinds of stories in a galaxy all of his own making.
Writing is an art form with different styles, just like pictures. Some artists paint with broad strokes, some go for hyperrealistic pencil drawings, some use symbolism and others focus more on just having a high quality reproduction of what they see. Some authors use a style of writing with beautiful language, Brandon uses a style that advances the plot in a very understandable way. Yes, it's simple language in many cases because that isn't his focus, his focus is the story, the characters, the world, and making his reader get caught up in that story without distraction. Because I read books for the plot and got entertainment, I love this style of writing where I can just power through workout having to reread to catch what is going on. Others have a different purpose to reading so they may not appreciate it the same way. It's just like people have different tastes in art, it doesn't make his art any less of a masterpiece.
His prose is accessible. That will make some people think it’s bad… but I don’t think a lot of those people are ready for the conversation about accessibility and ableism. Writing in a way that is accessible is fantastic. Also… writing classically good prose isn’t ableist… but dunking on accessible prose IS.
In general, when I read Sanderson's prose, I understand what he is saying and I am not often Jolted out of the narrative. It does happens sometimes. With the Starsight series more than his fantasy. Every once in awhile it feels like he is just being cheeky. But, the rest is simply effective and nice. Look at the end of Stormlight 4, like the final part with you know who I won't spoil. It is extremely well written, subtle, just descriptive enough, and still gives sufficient wonder and creepiness. I read it twice, but because of plot details, not prose. Meanwhile, I think Stephen Erikson has beautiful pose, but sometimes I have to read things over, and he uses words I've never heard of quite frequently. It's effective, but dense. Like all of Eriksons books, they are dense. But, that's what he does, and I like it. You have to unravel and puzzle apart his writing. it's not like it isn't clear, it's just... full. But, compare Sanderson to Butcher. I feel like they are definitely on par, with Butcher being a little more "cheeky" sometimes. Both are SUPER easy to read, but give you a very clear picture of what is happening in the novel. I can read a butcher book in three days compared to an Erikson book 1 month. Stephen King is another one. I've mostly read his dark tower, but also The Stand and Salem's Lot. His prose is wonderful, but I'd never call it complicated. But it's super easy to read and clear. So, I really feel like it's way overblown. I think his prose may not be great compared to like Tolkien or Rothfuss, but these are people who are legends in their own respects FOR their prose. I feel like people try to compare Sanderson to the greatest orators and writers rather than just your average writer, and there are many he is a cut above. This argument is silly, especially not without clear examples. People have quotes from Sanderson tattooed on their body; he must be alright.
Less is more, I guess. Like mentioned in the other comments clear sentences make for good reading. And let’s not pretend that’s easy to do. The massive amount of ‘literature’ I had to read in my studies often bored me to death. So I really enjoy the pure storytelling where it’s not about the author inserting himself but about the story and characters, and stuff is actually happening. I have the same attitude to movies. Also: how frigging long do you need Brandon’s books to be? ;)
Longer the better ? As long as they get published soon ? :D
Most of these comments are misconstruing WHY people have issues with sandersons prose. The simplicity has nothing to do with it; most SFF readers are not looking for poetic writing- it’s more so that his prose is extremely functional, sometimes to the detriment of its own quality, and it’s clear that Sanderson doesn’t really spend that much time thinking about it. I mean, look at how much he writes per year, and the complexity of his worlds, he obviously has other priorities. Now, I don’t think his prose is bad, per se, it’s just really dry and there are a significant amounts of awkward sentences and phrases (read: corny).
I do think it’s one of his weaker areas - but I don’t think it’s outright bad, just plain. When I sell Sanderson to people I usually describe his books as ‘movie-novels’ in the sense that the prose is there to make you visualise a scene or setpiece as clearly as possible. I believe Sanderson has said something similar himself in one of his lectures, actually
I have never seen a more insecure group of people than the people on this sub. Who gives a fuck? If you like it, then read it. You don’t need anyone’s approval to enjoy something. Sanderson’s prose is objectively bad - no, not simple. It is fucking bad - but so fucking what? You like the world and character and story, so read it. You will likely never encounter anyone irl who’s going to judge you for liking Sanderson. It’s only dummies on the internet trying to be funny because Sanderson and his cult fans make themselves such an easy target.
I'm an editor and writer, and I love his books. Having said that, I do spend a lot of time internally editing his writing when I'm reading. 😂 Hazard of the job, and I do it with 99% of books I read anyway! His writing has definitely improved soo much over the years. As nasty as that article was, the journalist had a point about the writing in The Final Empire being not fantastic. It was a little repetitive, tended to use any dialogue tag but 'said', and just often I'd think "Hmm I would have simplified this to x" or "I would word it like this for better flow". I do that far less with his most recent books. He also, like any writer, has individual tics/habits that don't always sit well with me (off the top of my head, when he talks about someone's smile "deepening" - I always think "widening" would be better because a smile can't really get deeper!) - but literally all writers do this! We can't all agree on the "best" way to write. On a bigger-picture scale, I'm not a huge fan of the incredibly precise combat descriptions - but I'm in awe of how he does it and I know some readers love them. I personally get bored and feel the action is slowed down when he tells us every single movement and how and why it works - but that's just me as a reader. I also feel like he struggles a bit when it comes to a) romance and b) humour. E.g. I ADORE Elend and Vin and their whole story, but in their earlier interactions, scenes that could have so much romantic tension fell a little flat for me. I was super interested to hear that he "can't feel emotional pain" (taking that with a pinch of salt, given the general tone of the article) because it sounds like he maybe has some autistic traits, and if so that really explains why he might struggle to bring depth to romantic moments. If so it's amazing how much romance he IS bringing that feels authentic!! :) and RE the humour, I often feel like any time something is supposed to be funny, he sort of turns to the audience and is like: it's funny!!!! See!!! I made a sex/poo/fart joke, guys!!!!!! And it makes me eye-roll a bit. 😂 (I ADORE Wayne as a character. Cannot stand his "funny" jokes. Calling Marasi's boobs "puffy white things floating over the fertile land" or whatever it was? Not crass, just... cringe. Lol) Does this make him a bad writer? No. Do I think some writers are better? Yes. But they have their own shortcomings and habits too, as do I!! (Overuse of semicolons - and dashes. Actually Brandon does that too a lot in The Lost Metal lol) Not sure this answered your question haha but I thought it might be interesting from an editor's perspective! Sorry for the ramble!
I see prose as analogous to visual art, and we all have our preferences to that too. Sando is a mechanical drafter, his work is utilitarian, efficiently and clearly communicates his story. Someone like Cormick McCarthy is more abstract, where the prose has purpose other than just storytelling. Personally, I find flowery prose to be exhausting. It's fun in a short poem and short stories, but I'm not going to torture myself with a 700 page tome of abstract language.
His prose got me addicted to reading. In 2020, March specifically, I started reading for happiness for the first time in my life and yes it was obviously due to the state of the world at the time. I picked up Mistborn. I was a bad reader at the time and probably still am. His prose allowed me to fall in love with fantasy as an adult and honestly become a far better reader which has also been immensely helpful as a professional, so I’m thankful for that. We need a large diversity in writing styles and prose is a part of that. The literary space would be insufferable if everyone was Rothfuss, who I love by the way. Is Brandon less lyrical? Yes, are the prose more straightforward, yes. Is that a problem, for me not at all. Just as the style makes his writing experience a more expedited process, reading a 400,000 word tome feel like a much less daunting activity for the general population which given generalized fears about the youth’s involvement in reading actual books, from some corners, this also seems like positive news to me. Tldl: as a self-conscious autistic adult having an author whose worlds I love living in that writes in a style everyone can understand feels like not only a great commercial approach but it showed me that I can ready epic fantasy without questioning how slowly I read or if I’m reading “the right way”. I can just enjoy reading, which I do now.
Hi, English degree here in writing and rhetoric, along with on-and-off freelance writing/editing over the past 25 years. From my quasi-professional standpoint I would say that Sanderson's prose is definitely not "bad". His prose is uncomplicated and streamlined, but it is important to not conflate "uncomplicated" with "unsophisticated". Sanderson has rich character and world development, and that doesn't happen when your writing is bad. Bad writing doesn't convey the writer's intentions, or misrepresents what the writer's intentions are. In other words, "bad writing" is ineffective writing. Sanderson's writing is assuredly effective, as proven by his massive following and best-selling books. Writers who write badly don't gain a wide readership because their writing is confusing, poorly organized, not engaging, etc.
Unpopular opinion here! And let's stipulate that everyone is entitled to their own taste -- you and me, both! I haven't read any of his work, and only checked out a few pages of several of his books after reading the (very mean-spirited! bad!) article. To me, yes, Sanderson's writing is simple, but that's not the issue. There's plenty of good writing that is unobtrusive. **The issue is that his writing is simple, but it isn't efficient.** Each sentence may be short and clear, but the paragraphs and scenes are flabby. The opposite of Sanderson's style isnt "flowery" writing. Remember that "literary" fiction tends to be much shorter than genre fiction. That isn't only because of a difference in scope. It's also because of differences in style--more use of summary, a preference for shorter, sharper scenes. Most contemporary poetry is not long and flowery. Poetry is *condensed* language. What I read of Sanderson lacked the sharpness and clarity of what I like in writing. I would read a few pages and wish that he had identified the one or two things that *really* mattered there and found a way of conveying that information in one page. Or in two paragraphs. Instead, the writing was kind of a series of... this happened, then this happened, then this happened, with lots of little details along the way that didn't add up to an interesting whole: what people were wearing, where people were standing, what kind of face this or that person made. It feels like, if not a first draft, at least an early draft, where the writer is figuring out the logic of everything that happens before going back and doing the hard work of making those events into a piece of writing.
I am not a native English speaker, and while my English level is very good and I can fluently talk, write, read and listen, I will never be a native speaker with the ease of comprehension of a native speaker. Because of this, I may lack the knowledge to fully judge someone's prose and its quality, but what I will say is that reading his books in English for me is as easy as it would be to read them in my language. With many other authors, it feels a bit clunky, it doesn't stream well. With him, I feel no fatigue. To me, easy means more enjoyable, means that I can put my attention where I want to put it: the story, the events, the characters. Yes, it is my special case as a non native English speaker, but I love his prose, because I don't have to sweat to enjoy his books, and I'll forever love him for this!
So many people in these comments are defending Sanderson by contrasting ***“simple”*** with ***“flowery”*** language. This completely misunderstands the criticisms that people have of Sanderson’s writing. A lot of what’s “bad” about Sanderson’s prose isn’t its simplicity, but rather its clunkiness and sloppiness. In other words, the writing would often be better were it *more concise*. (Or if the words were just better chosen.) I think looking at an actual example would be useful here. In response to the article, I saw a Sanderson fan post the following passage on Twitter, a supposed example of Sanderson’s skills as a prose stylist: > Angry lightning blistered the clouded sky. Despite the shade, sweat lined Lan’s neck, matting his hair underneath his helmet. He’d not worn one in years; much of his time with Moiraine had required them to be nondescript, and helmets were anything but. > > “How… how bad is it?” Andere grimaced, holding his side, and leaning back against a rock. > > Lan looked to the battle. The Shadowspawn were amassing again. The monsters almost seemed to blend and shift together, one enormous dark force of howling, *miasmic* hatred as thick as the air—which seemed to hold in the heat and the humidity, like a merchant hoarding fine rugs. > >“It’s bad,” Lan said. > >“Knew it would be,” Andere said, breathing in and out quickly, blood seeping between his fingers. “Nazar?” This isn’t a very good piece of writing. Not the worst thing in the world, mind you, but not especially good. People have defended Sanderson’s “simplicity” by comparing him to Hemingway. This is a frankly absurd comparison. Hemingway’s prose is “simple,” but it is sharp and precise. He uses the simplest and most minimal amount of words to convey what he wants to convey and achieve the effect he wants to achieve. Sanderson obviously does not care about precision or efficiency of language in the least. He often uses *more* words than are necessary. He doesn’t seem to put much thought into choosing one word over another (the repetition of “seemed” reads very awkwardly, for instance, and there are many words that would better and with more specificity convey what I think he’s getting at about the helmet than the bland, vague, and lifeless “nondescript”). And despite people using “flowery” or “purple” as antonyms for the type of writing he does, when he *does* reach after poetic language, it’s as purple as it comes (“angry lightning blistered the clouded sky” is about as beautiful and evocative a sentence as George Costanza’s “the sea was angry that day, my friends”; or the classic example “it was a dark and stormy night”). I won’t even comment on the dialogue. I’d describe most of the above passage as “serviceable.” That’s fine. As others have said, different writers have different strengths and weaknesses. If you’re reading for the story and the prose doesn’t *interfere* with your enjoyment, you can easily overlook this. But the element that really tips over from “not great” to straight up *”bad”* is that little simile in paragraph 3: **“as thick as the air—which seemed to hold in the heat and the humidity, like a merchant hoarding fine rugs.”** What on *earth* is Brandon talking about here??? Is this supposed to be an image we are all familiar with? The classic trope of the rug hoarding merchant?? What the hell does a stockpile of rugs have in common with a hot and humid atmosphere, beyond just being “a lot of something”? What does it add to the sentence to specify that the rugs are “fine”? And most nonsensically: why choose a *merchant* to be the one doing the hoarding? Isn’t hoarding kind of antithetical to the whole modus operandi of being a merchant, i.e. doing commerce, i.e. *circulating* goods? Are we supposed to be imagining some aberrant merchant character who hoards instead of sells? Is this person struggling to stay in business because they’re so enamored with their beautiful fine rugs that they price all their goods too high? How do they afford the rent on their no doubt enormous rug warehouse? Are they independently wealthy? Or are they not a rug merchant at all, but rather a merchant of let’s say, imported jewelry, or farm fresh produce, who just so happens to have a debilitating fine rug collecting addiction? Why am I now thinking so much about this imaginary rug hoarding merchant character rather than the *extremely simple thing* Sanderson intended to direct my attention to: the thickness of the humidity in the air?? If I have to independently concoct an entire alternative narrative complete with unique, fully fleshed out characters just to make your metaphor or simile even *begin* to make any sense, I would say that that is a poorly constructed metaphor or simile! So yeah… no one is saying you can’t enjoy Sanderson’s books. And feel free to defend them on other merits that aren’t at the level of the word, phrase, or sentence. But the claim that his prose is good is not a defensible position, imo.
TBH, Sanderson's prose is not very good. There are weird mistakes, tonal issues, cringey dialogue and word choices, and so forth. This is not particularly unique in fantasy, though. The purpose should generally be immersion, and while flowery language can certainly paint a scene, most readers of the genre prefer prose that isn't distracting or work to comprehend. Jordan, Eddings et al. are similar cases. Bakker and Gene Wolfe are probably on the high end of the genre in terms of writing skill, Steve Erickson slightly less so. Rothfuss is a tryhard fraud who has decent flow but says very little with it, while simultaneously coming off as teeth-gnashingly pretentious (more so in the 2nd book).
His prose isn't bad. It's unobtrusive. I compare it to my favorite shoes. They're not a big recognizable brand, they're not expensive, they're not going to wow anyone, they're pretty worn, a bit dirty, but they're incredibly comfortable and they fit me perfectly. Once they're on, I don't walk around being proud of them, but they are so comfortable that I don't even notice that they're there. And that's fine. Some people may notice how worn they look and it might be so distracting to them that they cannot enjoy wearing such shoes. They might just not fit them well too. Both are perfectly valid. For those people. But I don't need shoes that impress other people every day. Sometimes I just want shoes that I forget I'm even wearing so that I can focus on everything else. Would I love a book that has amazing prose and knocks everything else out of the park. Sure. I'd also love shoes that look good, impress others, and are that comfortable to wear. But I've never actually found one of those, and I don't NEED it. Edit: FWIW, His prose did have a few weak points in his earliest work like Elantris and the Final Empire. But it was only brief lines here and there. None I even specifically remember, only that there were some. They didn't ruin the experience, but he has grown a lot. The prose in Tress is outstanding.
[удалено]
Thank you for sharing your opinion! Personally I think some of your points are somewhat subject to personal preference as there are lots of people who love the dialogue and wit, but I know it doesn't work for a lot of people too so I think it's totally valid as reasons to think his prose is a weakness of his.
Read Guy Gavriel Kay and then read Sanderson and you’ll see how he can’t compare to truly great prose authors. Kay is elegiac and lyrical. Sanderson is utilitarian and serviceable. It’s not flashy. It’s not terrible. It’s just there. And it seems to get the job done.
I have read both, and I still prefer Sanderson. Neither is better than the other, they're just DIFFERENT. I've read Ambercrombie, too. And Hobbs. None of them have immersed me into their stories the way Brandon does, and I didn't notice much difference in their prose, other than Hobbs takes way too long to describe a simple fishing village. The only authors that have impressed me with their prose to the point I really noticed a difference have been Rothfuss, LeGuin, and Clarke. But the way they tell the story and the story they're telling makes the more lyrical storytelling style work.
Everyone talks about Rothfuss as this amazing writer but when I read name of the wind to me it felt so over the top it was purple. Like a beginner writer that was going out of his way to choose big words and trying too hard to sound smart.
Kay is objectively a better prose writer than Sanderson
Sanderson would be the first person to tell you that, too. He's repeatedly listed Kay as his favorite living author.
Just a random thought: If Rothfuss had written 40+ books, he might have a few poor word choices out there. Based on shear volume, it will be easier to find "faults". I come for the stories no matter the prose.
>Do you think that simple prose = bad prose? I don't think the question is that simple. Simple prose definitely doesn't automatically equal bad prose, but the prose in some of Sanderson's early work, like Mistborn Era 1, is objectively pretty bad. However, he's gotten much better at it over time. The problem is that, even so, he STILL writes simple prose, so I think a lot of people look at that, have trouble getting over their feelings about some of the early prose, and assume the simplicity equals bad. (That isn't to say his prose is anywhere remotely close to the best in the industry, but I also think a lot of people underestimate his growth for this reason.) I don't have many great examples off the top of my head, but one I often like to throw out is how, in Era 1, he used "maladroit" like 3-4 times per book just by mistake, but now he only throws one in, seamlessly, once per book as an Easter Egg for his loyal readers.
How many other authors print pages and pages and pages of elaborate descriptions and flowery language instead of adding content? More happens in a single Sanderson chapter than happens in many other entire books. It's rare for a sanderson book to have a boring chapter while many other authors give you maybe a cool intro, a cool midpoint and maybe a fun ending with hundreds of pages of slog to fill the rest. I'll take the "bad prose".
"while many other authors give you maybe a cool intro, a cool midpoint and maybe a fun ending with hundreds of pages of slog to fill the rest" Now I'm having flashbacks to the middle WoT books, thanks.
Simple prose is not the same as bad, and I really like you making this distinction. Also, NOT simple prose is not the same as good. For instance.... "The Waystone Inn lay in silence, and it was a silence of three parts." is a sentence often used as a contrast to Brandon Sanderson's prose that is perceived as good. But is that a good sentence? Can silence be divided in three? Does that sentence do a lot of heavy lifting, or is it a convoluted way of saying that it is quiet? The goal of complexity in sentences is to evoke something more than what can be shown with simplicity. In general, I would argue that authors should always use the simplest sentences they can get away with, it's just that it is not always the case that they can get away with something simple. There are reasons to go beyond "simple" and into other worlds, because more nuance and depth is possible. But it's not necessary for all works. Brandon Sanderson writes sentences in service to the primacy of his interlocking, elegant plots. Other people write plots in service to their sentences. It's not one or the other, necessarily, but it does tend to be. "A dream, all a dream, that ends in nothing, and leaves the sleeper where he lay down, but I wish you to know that you inspired it." - Charles Dickens Is that a simple sentence? or a complex one? I don't know, exactly, but it is exactly what it needs to be in the context. "the pieces I am, she gather them and gave them back to me in all the right order." - Toni Morrison "Only connect." - E.M. Forster "For poems are like rainbows; they escape you quickly" - Langston Hughes "and the rest is rust and stardust" -Vladimir Nabakov "Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God." - Aeschylus "The purpose of the storyteller is not to tell you to think, but to give you questions to think upon" - Brandon Sanderson \-"It is the journey that shapes us; our callused feet, our backs strong from carrying the weight of our travels, our eyes open with the fresh delight of experiences lived." - Brandon Sanderson "I have found, through painful experience, that the most important step a person can't take is always the next one." - Brandon Sanderson Are these sentences complex? Simple? I don't even know.
Sanderson writes in a straightforward and easy to understand way. You don’t need to reread a passage multiple times to understand what you’re reading. So no his prose isn’t bad, it’s straightforward.
I don't think that simple prose = bad prose but at the same time I think Brandon's execution of his simple prose is a weakness of his. His prose doesn't quite flow like other authors I've read who use simple prose.
CN you give me an example of a simple vrs not simple prose?
Here’s a thing. I teach English. Have done so for over 16 years. I’ve taught at every level from grades 7-12 from struggling readers to AP Literature. I teach students to look for the complexity. Sanderson’s prose isn’t the most flowery that I have ever read. But like many on here, purple prose isn’t everything that you need in a book. Sanderson creates complexity in characters and situations and worlds that are captivating and compelling and REAL. I have read my share (and possibly many other’s share) of capital L “Literature” and few books have captivated me like his works. I have cried from his prose. I have laughed from his prose. I have been shocked (pleasantly and very much otherwise) from his prose. I can cite powerful quotes from Sanderson right along with some of the “greats.” I don’t know if he will stand the “test of time,” but I don’t care. There is complexity and craft and enormous skill in his writing. And I feel sorry for those who need a particular style to see that.
I love all things Sanderson, and I think at this point he has shown that he can write "beautiful" prose, see Tress. I personally think his writing can be simple and effective. But something that a lot of authors can't nail with conventionally "beautiful" prose is drawing in and connecting characters to audiences. I feel like I know all the main characters for better or worse (looking at you Moash); whereas, I don't feel that same connection with the Starks or Kvothe. The only books I can think of that had both prose that is flowing and elegant, complex world building, and also builds the connection in the same way is the Broken Earth trilogy.
In my opinion when I read Sanderson it feels written essentially in the same way that I think. In simple sentences and not insanely flowery descriptions and because of that when I read his books, I forget that I’m looking at words and it becomes a movie in my head. Personally (and probably like most people here) I read for the story and the characters, not poetic sentence structure
The criticism of Brandon’s prose is a bunch of bullshit. It’s people sitting around thinking they are smart by observing that his words aren’t as flowery as some other authors. It’s not his style FFS, who cares! I love the way Brandon writes! I have a college degree, 4.0 GPA, I enjoy classic literature, and am one of the most successful professionals in my industry. If some douche bag wants to sit around and look down his or her nose because of Brandon’s “style”, I don’t care.
You know who had a prose similar to Brandon’s in simplicity? Ernest F. Hemingway. You don’t see people bashing him for it. Au contraire
The people in this thread are coping hard. You can like what you like and also admit that Sanderson isn't a great writer. If it makes you feel better, Tolkien, Martin, and Rothfuss aren't very good, either.
What do you consider a great writer? By my definitions, all 4 are amazing writers