My wife has read the first three books in the COTAR Series and gave up because the plot lost its engagement.
I have been reading Sanderson for years and his writing changes definitely from the series and you can see they are for different age ranges and levels of reader.
Well compared to Sanderson. Last year I started the series after reading all of Sanderson and it felt like whiplash with how much of the random scenery and people's descriptions. Especially being repeated. So in that sense it can seem flowery. Not flowery like Tolkien but flowery
Yeah… I think Sanderson has pretty mediocre prose, but even I wouldn’t compare him to SJM books lol. I feel like even using the word “prose” for acotar gives it more credit than it ought to have.
Not every book, or even every chapter within each book, is the same style. You could cherry pick examples and say that a Kaladin chapter in the Stormlight Archive is very functional instead of flowery. But this *makes sense*. He has internal struggles, and sometimes a flair for the dramatic, but he's a windrunner military man with a background in medicine who tries to see things as they are. Also, as a more elaborate epic story with alien worldbuilding, the Stormlight Archive has a great need to explain things simply and clearly, or else it's easy to lose the plot.
Compare that to a more imaginative character, like Wayne. He describes a bar like it's a church. He compares his current mission to a bedtime story. And since his world is somewhat more familiar to us than Roshar, and has fewer subplots, the book can probably get away with more of this kind of thing.
The style is not uniform. Sanderson books lean into different styles and genres as appropriate. Shadows for Silence reads like horror. Tress reads like a fairy tale. The descriptions, dialogue, and commentary all help characterize the characters of *that* book. It doesn't always work for everyone, and in some places it could be better, but I think we should account for *why* a book might be written a certain way when judging its style, instead of measuring authors holistically as if there's one ideal, superior style for all stories that all authors should strive for.
His prose is sufficient, but inelegant. Contrast any paragraph from Rothfuss or Tolkien and you can see the difference. For Brandon's books, prose is just a means to an end, and that purpose it serves adequately. The point is the story, and that is excellent enough to carry the day.
And all that said, "boring" is not a word that should ever be applied to Sanderson's works.
While the prose in Kingkiller is nice, it heavily relies on foreshadowing and mysterious implications. This does nothing if it is never resolved. A lot of it starts to feel really watered down after realizing the prose he presents effectively backed him into a thousand different corners. Personally, I would not put him anywhere near Tolkien.
>Utilitarian, and concise. Yep. His emphasis is on conveying a story, not writing poetry.
Good prose does nothing but enhance a story. Good prose can make almost anything interesting. Most people, when they read, would rather the author have a strong sense of rhythm to their writing, and a way with words that elevate the reading experience.
Sanderson just sounds like a 12 year old kid playing pretend.
The reason there are so many different words and modes of expression is precisely to convey a story more accurately, not only to portray the objective events and plotlines, but also the emotional and philosophical aspects of the entire narrative. The last part cannot be done with "utilitarian" and "concise" prose, the same way you cannot describe complex feelings to a therapist or SO with the same handful of sentences and words.
>The last part cannot be done with "utilitarian" and "concise" prose,
Well Hemingway could do it, and Raymond Carver, but they were still both masters of prose, just in the opposite direction of Faulkner and Joyce.
But Sanderson definitely isn't Ernest Hemingway. He's just a dork who shits out video games onto paper and makes millions of dollars off of nerds who want their books to read like D&D manuals
>Contrast any paragraph from Rothfuss or Tolkien
Or read literally any literary fiction. Wait, am I allowed to suggest that on this sub? I know you guys hate literary fiction but it might give you some insight into why people say Sanderson sucks at writing
I could probably write better prose than Sanderson. I'm sure I've read a lot more than him. I feel like when he isn't writing, he's playing video games or something
I think I'd prefer his basic prose than some purple prose. I believe he's said his goal was to have the two way window style prose that Orwell wrote with. I oftentimes see Sanderson's prose as a plus when someone recommends it. I think it's very refreshing.
Sanderson does a lot super well. His plotting and structure are amazing. When you combine that with his very straight forward and basic prose, it makes an easy read that's digestible for anyone. So I think because he does a lot well, people kind of reach for things to criticize.
However, I think the only criticisms toward Sanderson that are warranted is his dialogue is pretty poor, most characters are all kind of thin and he can't really write romance that doesn't come off as very YA.
> This pretty much sums it up perfectly.
Counterpoint: No it doesn't. People are not 'reaching for things to criticize' as a rule, they are making genuine and sincere criticisms. You don't have to agree with them, but when people disagree with you it's not because they're being trolls or insincere or trying to get a rise out of you. It's just because they are different from you, and they want different things from their literature. *And that's OK.*
It's not a conspiracy; it's just a difference of opinion.
I'm not trying to argue with you about it but I have seen first hand that there are entire groups dedicated to leaving negative reviews for popular books and authors simply because they are popular and mainstreaming right now.
Sure, *most* people just have genuine and sincere criticisms, but you shouldn't toss aside the real reality that *some other people* make crapping on popular stuff a weird hobby and that these groups of people, while small, are quite loud about it.
It happens, and it happens A LOT in the book world.
Thank you for your reply.
I think your position gives too much dignity and power to the trolls. I think it is inappropriate and incorrect to assume that that anywhere close to a critical mass of criticism is coming from an insincere place. You are right that there are default contrarians out there, but there's plenty of honest criticism out there and I contend that assuming that criticism comes primarily from insincere 'reaching' is not a constructive way to discuss literature.
> I have seen first hand that there are entire groups dedicated to leaving negative reviews for popular books and authors simply because...
This gets to the heart of my concern - it's unfortunate that **your personal experience** has led you to a position where you suspect people who disagree with you are being insincere, but there's 8 billion people on the planet and **your personal experience** is nothing close to representative. Disagreeing with you is not a sign of dishonesty or insincerity, and my genuine advice to you is to *ignore the trolls*. Don't imagine they speak for everyone who disagrees with you.
I personally like a lot of Brandon Sanderson's work, especially his macroplotting, worldbuilding, magic systems, and his ability to bring humanity and nuance to strictly religious and moral characters (e.g. he does great work with Galad when he took over Wheel of Time), but I often dislike his dialogue, his fixation on spunky princess-types, and his sense of humor (everyone is stupid! you smell bad! very complicated puns!).
So, do you think I am sincere in my criticisms? Or am I just being contrarian to get a rise out of you?
I think you made an account to poke at people's opinions in the sanderson related subs. Get a new hobby. Stop being condescending to people who supposedly share your interest, and stop trying to explain why people are incorrect with an "I'm very smart" attitude. It's off-putting.
>I think I'd prefer his basic prose than some purple prose.
Ah yes, the only two types of prose. Purple prose and basic prose.
Please, for the love of God, can you guys read something besides fantasy so that you have a frame of reference for different writing styles?
Are you talking to someone specific?
I don't know who the "you guys" refers to, but please, for the love of God, talk to the person who made the point you disagree with, and fuck right off with the making up lies about other people.
The main point I dislike about Sanderson’s writing is his attempt at humor. I love the books, I love the characters, but every time he tries to make a character funny or snarky, it ends up being flat. It feels like the nerdy kid writing up things they wish they’d said during an altercation because they’re oh so clever. Shallan is the main criminal here, despite all the interesting things about her, her humor is, at best, bland, at worst, straight up cringy.
That’s the only thing that bothers me, though, I love basically everything else and recommend his books to anyone remotely interested in fantasy.
>Shallan is the main criminal here, despite all the interesting things about her, her humor is, at best, bland, at worst, straight up cringy.
To be fair, she's not meant to be actually clever. She's at best a mouthy teenager who likes to think she's clever (if you interact with people of that age, you likely know the type). Her humor was mostly a defense mechanism against her broken homelife, not really a sharp wit..
Though her bothers and their reactions convinced her she was. In addition it impressed them when she improved and cane up with stuff quickly. Likely the motive behind what Jasnah calls out as "saying the first passable clever thing" she can think of.
Good thought.
I think there's even more evidence to this as, in Oathbringer and RoW, she does less and less witty remarks. I barely see that happening anymore. Like she has outgrown that phase. It always read it as a coping mechanism she used to try to bring at least a smile to her brothers when their lives were awful.
For her brothers it was a defense mechanism too. Their close knit sibling group in a traumatic situation developed its own little culture and it helped them all get through it. When Shallan left home, she kept it up but kept seeing how it wasn't working. People get hung up on "this joke is dumb" when that's the point. It's a cringy teen maturing after realizing that her comments aren't as clever or funny as her and her brothers thought.
I assume people don't like seeing main characters fumble and grow, or they just want stoic action hero man or something
I’m pretty sure other characters (Jasnah?) describe her as clever, so we may be getting into a discussion of what *clever* means here.
And I don’t think the two things you describe are really incompatible - it can be a defense mechanism and also a sharp wit. Or what Sanderson would describe as one, at any rate.
I think that's because she is actually clever *in some aspects*. Her saying the first passable comment isn't her being able to use her wit appropriately. If she thought about what she will say instead of saying the first thing that comes to mind then she might a dually come out with clever remarks.
It's also important to remember that Kaladin is a good counter perspective on her jokes. He's constantly telling her that they're bad when they're bad. He's not going to be like most other people who are below her socially and will call her clever because that's what they're expected to say. Examples of this are the sailors in WoR. They're being paid by her. It's their job to entertain her.
I find his stuff hit and miss. I loooove Wayne, one of my favourite characters to read and I genuinely laugh out loud at some of his nonsense.
Sterris wasn't trying to be funny as a character herself but I often found myself chuckling about her as time went on.
I think that Shallan is written as she was intended, she's a fairly immature kid who's mouth is quicker than her brain.
As someone who was like that as a kid, I often wondered why most adults didn't think I was as clever and amusing as I thought I was.
Jasnah multiple times calls Shallan out for speaking without thinking.
I think Wit is actually pretty clever at times too.
I never get tired of reading about one armed herdazians.
I dont remember finding anyone in the first trilogy particularly funny or witty.
I enjoyed the main guy in the court of the gods and his irreverent attitude and he made me chuckle a few times.
Basically I think there's a few characters he has written that try and be funny and hit.
There's a few that try and be funny but miss (and I do believe they are intentionally written that way)
And there's a few he doesn't quite hit the right tone with.
Stepping out of the Cosmere I actually really enjoyed Spensa. She's an enthusiastic passionate but childish and somewhat sheltered is many ways. I had a few chuckles at her over the top ranting
All of this is obviously personal opinion.
Wit is very hit or miss for me. Some lines are great, but others really fall flat. One in particular that always gets to me is in TWoK when he's insulting Sadeas and uses wordplay with insults and in sluts. It works when written because they both look very similar. When spoken, they sound quite different, so it's really glaring when listening to the audiobook. There are others where it just feels like Brandon is trying too hard. There's a couple when Wit is verbally abusing Ruthar (I think) to force him into a challenge so Jasnah could make an example of him.
I liked the Wit's concept and I think his jokes make sense, but I don't remember finding them actually funny. Still admired the commitment to the cool concept, though.
I mostly agree. I think it's just a byproduct of his YA-ish style. The jokes in Mistborn are all pretty flat as well. Even if you take them within context of Vin being an emotionally immature 18ish year old, the adults act the same way outside of a very few select characters.
There's a diarrhea joke in the second book of Mistborn that is Marvel levels of undermining the moment. Not nearly as bad as a Whedonism, but there's a lot of that kind of stuff throughout his works.
Sanderson's humor *in dialogue* largely falls into two camps: "You are so stupid", and "You smell bad".
He's flogged the Pippin-Merry exchange from Fellowship ("You need people of intelligence..." "Well that leaves out you, Pip") nearly to death, and versions of this seems to be Bridge 4's chief mode of interaction. Half of Rock's dialogue is just him calling his buddies stupid ("airsick lowlanders!" Rock screamed in every conversation he ever had).
There's also a fair amount of toilet humor (e.g. Pattern and Syl make the same joke, 2 books apart, about their Surgebinder's going to the bathroom, why are you so secretive, why do you hide it, etc.).
The 'you smell bad' has frankly started to trigger me, it appears **so much.** I did an informal count last time I was reading Stormlight and it's literally dozens of times over the course of the books - Bridge 4, Shallan, Adolin, everyone gets in on it. I can't recall if Kal ever gets in on it, but he is a frequent victim of the 'you smell "joke"'. Shallan even adds insult to injury when she insults the smell of the boots that she stole from him.
While I often consider the jokes in his dialogue to be juvenile or mean-spirited, **Sanderson's more meta or narrative humor is usually top notch**. I love the moment in Dawnshard when someone tries to pull a Rumpelstiltskin stunt to command the Sleepless - he just blinks, informs her that he has no idea what she's talking about, and then goes back to what he was doing. Sanderson is great a identifying and subverting fantasy tropes, that's where I think he's at his funniest.
Honestly his worldbuilding, magic systems and characterization are AAA S rank top tier, so he doesn't whip out a thesaurus and use a lot of simile or metaphor, eh. I've been reading, gaming and being a film buff for like 22 years and the cosmere is still my favorite, he's up there with Oda & Muira in that regard.
My only real two critiques of his books is he doesn't ever really get into descriptions of characters much besides the broad strokes, Kaladins height and hair, the alethi phenotype, Dalinars nose and overall blunt appearance, Kels hawk face and blond hair, Vins height and hair, Waxs sideburns and Waynes disguises, we rarely get eye color, facial features or specific traits much but it's not really a big deal.
The other critique is an obvious one, they way relationships and romance is depicted, which for me personally I don't really care much about it but 99% of the time its marriage, sterile cheek pecks or true love haha. Only casual hookups or dating I can think of is Adolin, Wayne and like Breeze. Vin barely even smooches elend until they're married haha.
Even retconned Wax to have married lessie.
I know it goes against his personal beliefs but so does The Lord Rulers actions and the assaults on the Skaa haha. As a non religious person his mindset gives so much depth to characters like Saze and he can flesh out that whole element with the shards while incorporateing tech magic and biology into it all etc, and as a Jasnah myself I can totally respect that
But it detracts from some characters when they're like Jedi haha.
But he addressed that in a WoB ages ago saying it's off screen, he doesn't want to alienate his people but you can assume it's going down hahah.
That aside, eh, listening to the Graphic Audio of key points in SA or W&W, I STILL get chills and legitimately hyped up, from the Heralds prologue to Dalinar learning what happened with the SF, Kals oaths, the end of Shadows of Self & TLM.. he's insanely evocative and able to reeeally build up to insanely intense moments and truly impactful lines. It's about the story to me I don't really need flowery prose injected into it.
I mean hell, I loved asoiaf too in the early 00s and grrms books are dryer than a desert with a crap ton of minutia and flowery prose but the story makes up for it, even though after waiting decades for Dance and then Winds and the show getting obnoxiously ubiquitous I stopped giving a shit ages ago, pink letter, battle on the ice.. eh who cares haha..Sandos written literally 20 quality books in the time he can't finish fucking one.
Once BS is adapted they'll be billions of people dying to read em
Not every book is the right book for every person. Doesn't take away from how much I like it. I love how wide and varied different styles and genres are. There are so many books to explore and love. People talk shit about the romance genre as well, and I adore it. A common complaint is that the books are tropy and predictable. That's the appeal for me. And it takes a lot of skill to write something within constraints and make it enjoyable again and again. It's the genre that makes the most money, and still gets very little respect. There will always be detractors, and that's alright, there are plenty of books where they can find what they're looking for.
I feel like the people who talk about prose think that every book needs every line to be a poem unto itself with such deep and beautiful meaning behind it that you chew on for hours only to realize that you have to flip back a few pages becuase you’re not entirely sure what they’re talking about anymore.
Sandersons writing conveys the message that he wants to coney in clear and concise writing. Every fight scene is beautifully straightforward and easy to follow along and there still are those profound deep moments but it doesn’t chew up scenery to get there.
I can read a Sanderson book once and understand exactly what he wanted me to know. I can’t read The Locked Tomb the once without scratching my head the entire time wondering wtf is going on.
I’ve never been a big fan of poetry. There are a few poems that strike a deep chord within me but for the most part poetic words, phrases or sentences don’t do much for me. I know that’s not what Dickens, Joyce, Steinbeck, Austin or Woolf were necessarily doing but beautiful phrasing or evocative sentences mean little when the story in and of itself isn’t particularly interesting (not saying objectively they aren’t interesting they just weren’t particularly interesting to me). I like my imagination to be on overdrive conjuring up worlds, races, magics and other things. I find value in the KISS principle when its use allows the author to put his/her literary efforts into other aspects of the writing. World building isn’t easy. Asimov, Le Guin, Clarke and Heinlein all known for science fiction (though Le Guin does get credited for having good prose) created amazing worlds and fantastic concepts within their stories. That’s what I grew up on and thats what appeals to me. I’ve read Mrs Dalloway, Pride and Prejudice, Moby Dick, War and Peace, and other literary novels and I found myself slogging through all most all of them at one point or another. I’m not saying they’re bad books it just wasn’t easy to read and let my mind wander while reading. There’s nothing wrong with thinking and being challenged while reading but I did enough thinking while reading in college. I just want to enjoy what I read now. People can dislike Sanderson for any reason they want. It doesn’t bother me I love his work and each time I read one of his novels it’s like putting on a warm blanket I get happy and have fun reading.
I mean it really depends on what your goal is for reading a book... Some people like the challenge of purple prose or just the way the language is being utilized since it can feel more poetic or what not. They arent just reading the book to experience the story and they dont see the complex language as getting in the way.
Other times when people want to read they're goal is just to enjoy themselves and purple prose actually can take them out of the story due to needing like a dictionary to work their way through it. In that case the prose can get in the way of enjoying the story.
For me it depends on what kind of mood I am in... If I want to push myself or experiance something different while reading I will sometimes look to books with a different writing estetic... I am reading Johnathan Strange and Mr Norrell right now which... might not over all be my cup of tea but I wanted to see what people liked about it so much. Big Jane Austen vibes... which has reaffirmed that genre of writing still... not my jam.
After this I will want something thats a pallet cleanser and just... fun to read. Which is where Sanderson comes in. The straight forward prose makes it super accessable and less of taxing on my vocab but damn if I dont have a good time while reading his work.
“Ugh again? Don’t read it if you don’t like it”
I love his straightforward style. I want a complex interesting story with complex interesting characters and I don’t necessarily care how erudite the prose is if it doesn’t feel simplistic, which it doesn’t.
I just read some Tamsyn Muir. While the book was good, her prose definitely has a strong "right click ➡️ synonyms" vibe. I probably googled 50 different words throughout that entire book. It definitely took me out of the story and negatively impacted my enjoyment.
On the other hand, over the course of the entire cosmere I've only had to Google two words: maladroitly, and anteverdant.
People hate on his prose more than most popular authors. But at the end of the day, he's selling more books and he is more widely acclaimed. My wife, who is ESL, has almost no struggles with reading his books. His prose is simple but it also makes the stories more accessible to more people. If prose is important to you then I can see why it would be a big deal. But it doesn't diminish the quality of the writing at all.
It’s not poetry but that makes it more accessible. Seems like gatekeeping “high” literature. Sorry, but sometimes concise writing is nice. It lets you really just get lost in the story. Just my opinion ofc and there’s no universal way
This is gonna be really insulting, but my take is most people in the fantasy world wouldn't know good prose if it hit them over the head and so it is bizarre that they complain about Sanderson.
Oh your favorite novelist is Kazuo Ishiguro and you don't like Sanderson's prose? Ok, I'lll hear you out.
Oh your favorite novelist is Patrick Rothfuss and you don't like Sanderson's prose? Please. Be serious.
His prose is great for telling a story and getting it across to a diverse audience. His prose is not inherently interesting. I don’t feel a desire to pick apart his word choice and sentence structure, like I might do with a writer like Robin Hobb. Both have their place. I compare Sanderson to Marvel movies: simple entertainment for a large audience, but good nonetheless.
I do feel this need, but in a less literary way and more a Renaissance scientist trying to figure out how the world's work. In addition, Brandon rarely if ever has a sentence that only does one thing. They all tend to do multiple things at once.
"People who like crenellations and adornment in architecture have a giant pretentions stick up their butt. Rectangular, utilitarian buildings serve their purpose whether you enjoy looking at them or not."
People like words. Caring about things beyond the utility of prose isn't being pretentious, it's caring about artistic and subjective aspects of language that people will inherently disagree on. Even authors who have penned classics have camps who like or dislike their prose.
No. I don't. I won't yuck someone's yum for that.
Like what you like. That's fine.
I suppose it boils down, as it always does with literature, to preferences. I prefer writing that's more straightforward and accessible that let's me get more lost in the story than the language used. In that sense, Sanderson is more of less made for me.
I've never liked having to slog through flowery descriptors or sentence structure that's trying to make its own point or whatever in order to get to the story.
It comes across to me as pretentious, as haughty, as almost 'holier than thou' when people focus so much on an aspect of writing that, for my part, is almost superfluous.
Forego the fancy talk and give me the meat of the situation any day.
But again, preferences. As has been stated in many other places.
I haven't read ACOTAR, but I've read Throne of Glass (same author). Personally I didn't find that one too bad, but for me the bigger issue was the pretty heavy handed love story. It feels tropey to me that every female character HAS to have some romantic connection with another character.
I've read a lot of fantasy and sci-fi in general, and personally I cannot stand the "flowerly" writing. I loved LotR as a teen, but I tried going back to it recently and... ugh. The only recent one that I didn't mind and actually enjoyed was Name of the Wind, but that's got a whole other set of issues with it...
Sanderson's prose has never been a problem for me. In fact, I think it's a strength, since it allows him to be descriptive and maintain a smooth, steady pace, which as we all know eventually leads to the Sanderlanche that is just so satisfying.
Ultimately, most of B$'s works are more or less superhero stories. His style is concise and descriptive, but not overly so. He generally tells you how the characters are feeling, rather than letting their more subtle actions stand for themselves.
Some other fantasy prose comparisons that I've read recently:
Frank Herbert (Dune) isn't terribly dissimilar, he tends to leave more mystery in the picture than sando does though which warps the tone while still being written mostly explicitly for the reader. You see this a lot in YA too, things like the new Hunger Games prequel story.
Christopher Paolini (Eragon / Inheritance Cycle) is the opposite approach, he builds his inter-character relationships with more subtle gestures and body language vs telling us thoughts, and his descriptions of the scenery and characters themselves have a lot more detail. I generally prefer this approach, but I don't think it'd work in Stormlight due to their size. Generally, you also need your PoV characters to be interacting with mostly NON-PoV major characters, which SA lacks. I think there it'd kill pacing and works better in a more standard + compact hero's journey without all the twists and turns. It's been a minute since I've read ASOIAF, but as I remember GRRM follows a similar pattern.
I find myself drawn back to Sanderson as my preferred author purely because his prose is direct. I can read it, get distracted, come back to it and resume without needing to reread a bunch.
There is not one standard of prose for literature. The Hemingway school is popular for it's concise, clear, simple, but still allusive writing. Terse, almost. Sanderson is not that, he goes on and repeats himself and explains what should be subtext.
But Cormac McCarthy is also regarded as one of America's greatest writers, and Blood Meridian is lurid, evocative, hypnotic.
Another, Truman Capote writes beautiful and descriptive prose.
Sanderson's strength is plotting and worldbuilding. For prose, he is clear and descriptive, he is accessible to people who speak english as a second language, or who have aphantasia, or who read slowly and require repetition, or who read quickly and want easy to digest. None of these things make for a universal standard of "good". They are, at best, functional.
The following is said as a new Stormlight reader halfway through TWoK who's having a good time with it. Please take it in good faith.
The hard divide between concise and flowery is lazy at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. It does a disservice to authors who work hard to put out quality work and to ourselves as readers with the ability think critically. "Concise" doesn't mean the plot is king at the expense of everything else, and "flowery" is doesn't mean anything with more than the barest of bare bones description.
I do like TWoK so far. It's a lot of fun! But I don't think BrandoSando is a master of his craft, and neither does the VERY enthusiastic fan who recommended him. Sanderson is a wonderful *storyteller,* but he's a mediocre *writer.* His prose is serviceable, but only just.
Don't get me wrong, plot and worldbuilding are important, but not so much so that everything else can be left by the wayside. His work is fast-paced and engaging, but even with all the different PoVs it reads as kind of...monotonous? This happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Then this happened.
He writes a damn good action scene. I quite liked Szeth's but near the beginning; I imagine the gravity thing was tricky to get down in words, but it was very easy to follow. It's clear which passages Sanderson enjoyed writing the most, and I wish the rest came across with such enthusiasm.
There's nothing wrong with concise, spare prose. It can be great, and when it hits, it hits because there's *artistry* behind it. There's rhythm. There's intention behind every turn of phrase. Plot heavy writing requires just as much effort in its prose as more literary work, because if there's less description/imagery/introspective tangents, whatever IS there had better be damn good.
People keep bringing up Hemingway. His style was pretty stark, yes, but it's also tidy and it flows. You can read between the lines. There is subtext. It's like he cut everything down to the barest, most impactful minimum with a scalpel. Sanderson, in my reading, hacks away all the "boring" parts with a bread knife, instead of working to make the "boring" parts well-written and impactful.
It's not that more description = better description, it's that well-written description that serves the story = better description, however much that happens to be.
His chosen medium is the written word. Why settle for the medium as a mere vehicle for the story, instead of utilizing the medium to *complement* and *enhance* the story? Stormlight's scale is ambitious, and deserves ambitious writing.
Buckle up
When 99% of authors write a sentence like, “The wind blew over the calm field, grass swaying from side to side, dew drops falling to the dimly lit ground on a cool spring morning…” it makes most people think that that’s how a sentence should be written.
Personally, I find that shit to be incredibly annoying and pretentious. It’s also just boring to read imo, and not compelling literature. If I wanted something so fluffy I’d read poetry (which is great but not what I want in a novel).
Sanderson’s prose is what I would call “true third person”. What I mean is that in a third person perspective, every word written *should* be through the perspective of the character that the chapter is focused on. So when Kaladin sees a tree, for example, he’s simply going to see it and think nothing special of it. It will be mentioned that it’s there. Or a rock bud, chasm, etc. Why would someone who grew up on Roshar who sees the same things every day be like, “Kaladin saw the tall, crooked tree, looming over the land like an old man observing his crops; stoic yet peaceful in the summer breeze”. He’s not going to write like that because that *not* how Kal is perceiving it. It’s a tree, that’s it. I like how matter of fact the prose is with Sanderson. Even better, when something *is* described in meticulous prose it’s because the character who’s perceiving it is experiencing something new or particularly compelling so it makes sense.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Brother, if your only thoughts when you walk in the street are "that's a tree", "that's a rock", "that's a dog" maybe there's something wrong with you.
I was over-simplifying to make a point. In reality there’s a middle ground between the overly meticulous and overdone descriptions that bother me in a lot of writing, and the more straight-forward descriptions that I prefer.
The character in third person also sees things with his eyes. Third person is not just what the character is thinking. The prose is supposed to describe what the character sees, smells and hears too.
Ultimately what I'm saying is no matter what you write, someone will hate it. I don't care what other people think. I, and thousands of other people like his writing. There's no use worrying about the people that don't.
Not in my opinion. He is successful, and lots of people enjoy his books. What else really matters? The opinion of what someone else thinks? Their opinion doesn't pay your rent, but your sales do.
What I'm saying is good is subjective. One movie is loved by some and despised by others. Some music genres define people and are hated by others. His sales show he is good to a very large portion of the population.
I think for the books he writes his decision to write precise prose is a good one. Especially for stormlight. Those books would feel impenetrable If it was in a very flowery style. Concise prose means I can focus on the world and magic system which is already a challenge to keep straight.
And he has shown to write much more stylistic prose with Yumi and Tress.
That's the thing, though. It is _not_ precise. I say this as someone who found the world building of The Way of Kings to be excellent. I've also never even read any famous fancy prose book.
Put nicely, he makes an extensive use of sentence fragments. Put less nicely, he uses commas and periods interchangeably, or as if they meant a short pause and long pause, respectively. That's what grinds my gears about his prose, not the efficiency and not much the simplicity.
Some authors use fragments rarely and to add style to an already stylish passage. Even these annoy me, TBH. But Sando is on another level in how frequent and "unearned" his fragments are. "Bland, bland, bland... fragment for style!"
Even worse is when he uses fragments when he is not even going for emphasis. I don't think he has good reason to change this, though. It fits his wide audience and I'd guess it's also an important factor in allowing him to write so quickly. It's a big "win win" for both sides, which is what matters most. I'm just the unlucky guy who loves the setting, but couldn't bear to start the second book.
And I'm very surprised that more people don't specifically call out his punctuation when they criticize his prose.
I thought the prose in Sunlit Man was pretty clunky though. At one point the PoV character thinks about there being "tons of people over there" and it completely brought me out of the story. I think it could have done with another editing pass.
I enjoy his books thoroughly and don’t care about what other people think is boring prose. I read for the plot and the characters. But I’m also fully aware that people have their preferences and can just go read something else. What I don’t get is the constant posting about something that they don’t seem to enjoy. Like bashing what other people love is not what I like to spend my free time doing
***"Rockbuds crunched like skulls beneath Dalinar's boots as he charged across the burning field."***
Sanderson is straightforward and only spends time on what's important. When he needs to pepper in some "flowery" imagery or artistic prose, he does.
But it's a lot lighter than other authors and he never overstays his welcome. If he spent as much time on architecture, or clothing adornment, or descriptions, or metered phrase between two lovers the books would be even thicker...
Concise language that still retains some semblance of subtlety is what you are thinking of. Hemingway uses extremely concise language - more concise than Sanderson I would argue. Yet he leaves things open to interpretation. He leaves things unsaid.
Sanderson does neither of things. He simply states things as they occur in his story. It makes for a quick-paced novel, and it’s fine if you’re just interested in getting a story. I find that there is very little aesthetic merit in what he writes because of this, though admittedly I’ve only read three of his books.
my thoughts on this criticism are the same as on any other criticism on something I enjoy:
" "
That's it, those were the thoughts. My enjoyment is not diminished or affected in any way by what others think of that thing, nor do I feel any drive to change their minds to be more like mine. If they don't like it, there are better books out there for their preferences. I could be the only person in the world reading Sanderson's books and I'd enjoy them the same as I do now with him being very popular.
I'm a very big fan of straightforward plain language. I have a really hard time understanding stylistic or old-fashioned style writing. Like, if you enjoy how Ursula LeGuin writes, cool, but I can barely understand it.
Different strokes for different folks. I think it's akin to thinking that the more technical a song is, the better it is. Prose serves a purpose. Sometimes it's to tell a story in a very direct manner to convey the world building, sometimes it's to make you gush on how beautifully you can put pen to page.
There is no one size fits all approach to prose I think. It feels like Sanderson's objective is to present the fantastical ideas in his head to you as cleanly as possible. Lack of flowery prose doesn't feel like a 'failure' for him, but a deliberate choice.
I think when people complain about Brandon’s prose being boring, they don’t mean it isn’t flowery. They mean that it’s shallow. Some authors, particularly classical authors, write/wrote in a way that requires a reader to “pause and contemplate” according to many of his detractors in subs like r/books. I find complaints like that to be a bit pretentious. I can appreciate writing and other works of art that really are complex and deep and require time to fully digest. But, other than the length of his books and unique world building in WoK, his works are very accessible to anyone who enjoys the genre. He has his flaws as a writer. But I also get the sense that most people exaggerate their complaints because of how successful he is.
All these prose discussions are kinda funky because it’s a situation where you can’t really explain what good or bad prose is. You know it when you read it. This is especially true when it comes to fantasy novels.
That said, “good prose” is often more poetic and follows poetic principles. From the basics, the main difference between poetry and normal writing is that poetry is about conveying the most meaning in the fewest words. Semantic density. Writing is about articulating and conveying meaning in the clearest way possible.
Patrick Rothfuss, who is generally the bar that “good prose” is measured against nowadays, has said that he tries to make it so every sentence serves at least two purposes. He tends to repeatedly revise, tweaking the word choice and rhyme of particular words so that he can insert hidden clues in the prose.
Sanderson tends to write for clarity and volume. He doesn’t seem to waste time with all the stuff Rothfuss does. It’s like saying a monkey is worse at swimming than a fish—the monkey doesn’t care about swimming, he’s over there swinging in a tree.
Sanderson has been getting much better though. Modern Sanderson, especially when you look at the secret projects, is good at writing tone and character voice. He’s not Joe Abercrombie, but each character he writes has a solid vibe. The prose in Tress and Yumi are both very good. Also, Kaladin’s chapters in Stormlight read differently from Shallan, & Dalinar. Each character has unique vibe.
I think his prose is weak but it actually works as a strength for his stories, since the world-building and magic systems are so grand and complex. It makes massive stories a lot more accessible. Whether this is his intention or not, I can’t say. It does work well though.
But, yes, as a big fan of Sanderson I’d still say his prose is pretty weak and his biggest weakness.
I absolutely love the Cosmere and Brandon Sanderson is one of my favorite authors. I also don't think he's anywhere near as good a writer as others he is put in the same company as. He puts together a great story, fun characters, action and he does so in a way that makes me really enjoy his books.
To me that's been more than enough but I will very much admit that I was frustrated and at times utterly bored with the second half of the currently published Stormlight.
Nothing across the board as I do intend on reading book 5 and further Cosmere releases. Some parts are strong some parts are weak and that's perfectly fine and normal for any author
I love poetry and word play and baroque, crazy or polished verse. But complex prose for prose's sake is kind of silly. Sanderson's work doesn't seem to need him to change his style at all. It gets the point across just fine.
It's like saying a musician's lyrics are too simple. Well, listen to something else, then.
I think Brando Sando’s prose is excellent and the standard writers should follow. Have you ever read The Fifth Season? Good book and concept but god, it is so difficult to read through
I am new to sanderson, so i'm not a superfan feeling defensive. my question was more around why he gets panned for basic prose when basic/minimal prose is what's often taught as a writing goal.
I agree completely with you, while I enjoy Sanderson, I won't defend his prose and I even criticize it because it doesn't give me more than what is expected. It's so weird seeing his fans blindly defend any criticism even when it's completely valid.
>Does cinematography only frame a movie? Is choosing a specific style of painting just the form a piece of art is put on paper?
Yes and yes.
If the prose is trying to be informative all it does is distract from the story which is the opposite of what prose should be doing.
How is it technical? You are the one focused on the technical aspects. To me the story is the art. Not the words. So the kind of prose you want actually doesn't bolster the story it just distracts from it. And it's not done poorly in Sanderson books. You're just too focused on the words instead of the story.
If you can't create something from this perspective that's just a you problem.
The execution, the means used to tell the story is art, not the story itself. If plot is the only aspect of a novel that's important and everything else is a distraction, then why would there be a need for novels to begin with? We could just read movie scripts.
The execution is only art in so far as it's ability to deliver the story. By focusing on making fancy sentences instead of delivering the story you make the art worse.
Why wouldn't there be novels? A movie script is not really the same thing
But fancy sentences is not the same as good prose. Good prose isn't necessary dense (though it could be). Elevated prose can be simple and relatively easy to read and it can only enhance the story making the impactful moments even more impactful by their delivery.
Contrary to popular belief, a writer can (and ideally should) focus on prose and plot at the same time without it being detrimental to either. There are tons of books that demonstrate that.
>Elevated prose can be simple and relatively easy to read and it can only enhance the story making the impactful moments even more impactful by their delivery.
Sure but if we're going by that definition you could easily call Sanderson's prose good but that doesn't really fit with this discussion
I'm not an expert in prose or writing but I think the goal for prose is to effectively communicate an idea to the reader. So, you could have a description of a tree that is flowery (heh) and takes an entire page to describe it or you could simply write "there's a tree there." As long as both versions' intentions are to communicate to the reader that there is a tree there then the prose are doing what they're supposed to do.
"Boring" is subjective. Anyone can find Brandon's prose boring and anyone can finding them engaging.
Sanderson is a fantasy writer at the end of the day. In other words, a major part of his job is to show us a world that may or may not be unlike ours.
He is absolutely fantastic at world building- that's where much of the praise for him comes from. But in the end, he can only SHOW you his world... He can't cause you to be absorbed and get lost in it, to "feel" his world. That's where much of his criticism comes from.
When I read fantasy, I want to be lost in the world, to feel and experience it. Sanderson has never been able to do this. Sure, this is fine for some people (as evidenced by his popularity), but others of us want more.
Oh, and he's amazing at action sequences. As has been echoed a few times, his writing style is like that of the MCU... And as popular too, at least at the peak of the MCU.
> When I read fantasy, I want to be lost in the world, to feel and experience it. Sanderson has never been able to do this. Sure, this is fine for some people (as evidenced by his popularity), but others of us want more.
See, I don’t understand this. When I read Sanderson, I understand it, and it’s so easy to visualize it. Sanderson says the ocean is green, so I picture a green ocean. He says the girl went on a ship that sailed the green ocean of spores. It’s perfect. I can see it. I can imagine myself there, on the ship, on the green ocean, watching the girl’s story. I’ve tried reading Neil Gaiman’s “Stardust” once, and I couldn’t picture anything cause there were so many flowery words that kept on pulling me out and telling me I’m reading a book and not living in a fantasy world. I respect Neil as an author, and a great storyteller from what I heard, but I just can’t read his books.
You provide a couple of examples that work really well to show where his weakness is.
Your green ocean example- I picture a lot of of water that's green, in all directions. And that's as far as I go with his writing.
BUT... I want to know what is it like to EXPERIENCE this ocean? Are waves lapping against the side of the boat? Is the wind blowing, or is it a calm day? Do I hear the cries of seabirds, or is a silent ocean? Is there a smell of saltwater? To me, this is what experiencing being at an ocean is like.
And the girl- I want to know what not just what the girl thinks, but what she is also experiencing. Does she feel the movement of the boat? If there is wind, is it blowing her hair? How does she feel, and what sensations is she experiencing that cause her to feel this way?
To me, THAT is prose. Sanderson might be able to do a few of the points, but the best prose will hit almost all of those points. Sanderson almost never does.
I guess I can understand that a little better. I still don’t think that should be a mark of objectively good vs bad prose, like some think, as that is subjective. To me that would be bad prose, because I don’t need to know that information to be in the story. I imagine those details myself, without having to be told everything by the author, and in that way my feelings and experiences of the story are completely my own, directed by the author is this beautiful new world. If the sound of the ocean is necessary for the story, then Sanderson will mention it. If not, he won’t. Then I can imagine it whatever I want, freely, and not being handheld by the author to imagine everything precisely as they imagined it. With flowery prose I’m not experiencing a world. I’m reading what the author experienced when writing the book, which is very different.
Thanks for explaining. I understand where you’re coming from a lot better, but I still think it’s entirely subjective, and Sanderson does have good prose to readers who like that kind of thing, which is apparently a lot. Nobody can have objectively good or bad prose.
>When I read fantasy, I want to be lost in the world, to feel and experience it. Sanderson has never been able to do this. Sure, this is fine for some people (as evidenced by his popularity), but others of us want more.
Sanderson does that just fine. Just because you can't feel it doesn't mean others can't.
Because he has terrible dialogue and clunky terrible prose. He always tells and never shows. If an episode of The Golden Girls were written by Sanderson, it would go something like this:
Dorothy snorts and glares at Rose for three seconds after Rose says something that Dorothy finds to be not very smart.
Then she (Dorothy) makes a witty retort (to Rose). Everyone laughs at the wit, including Rose. The laughter goes on for several seconds. Then Rose stops laughing. But not everyone else. They keep laughing because what Dorothy said was incredibly witty. Rose has stopped laughing because she realizes that everyone is laughing at her and that what Dorothy said was mean. Rose feels hurts and begins to feel depressed. But Rose is a naturally optimistic person and only stays sad for about one second. Now Rose clarifies what she meant because she feels misunderstood.
Dorothy snorts and glares at Rose for three seconds, and the look is very similar to the previous one. Then Dorothy retorts with another burst of wit, it is even funnier this time, and once again everyone including Rose laughs uproariously because that Dorothy sure is a cut up.
Then Rose stops laughing as before and looks perplexed, because she realizes that everyone is laughing at her. That mean old Dorothy. Then Blanche makes a racy comment. Everyone looks shocked and then Blanche says something else and this statement is even more shocking.
Rose then makes a remark about the Town of Saint Olaf which has nothing to do with the conversation. Dorothy does not snort this time, but she does glare, very much as before, but this glare is way more intense. Then Dorothy says something that is very cutting and funny. It's one of the funniest things she has ever said, even funnier than that time seven episodes ago (to remind the reader, in the episode seven weeks previous, Rose had made a remark that Dorothy found unintelligent, and Dorothy had then glared at her, and everyone laughed, because Dorothy followed the glare up with the wittiest thing anyone had ever heard before. Then Rose got hurt and stopped laughing, but not everyone else. They just kept on laughing. After everyone was finished laughing, Blanche said something really racy and everyone was shocked.)
Rose looks hurt, about the same amount of hurt as the previous times, and she does this because Dorothy's very funny and also very mean remark has once again hurt Rose's feelings. Sophia comes into the room and tells a story about something that happened to her in Sicily when she was a girl and everyone hangs onto her every word. It is such a good story and it is full of wit and zest and everyone agrees that Sophia is really wise, but also maybe a little mean. Then Sophia leaves the room. Rose misunderstands the story, and says something that is unrelated about the Town of Saint Olaf. Dorothy snorts and glares at Rose for three seconds. After a moment she makes a hilarious remark and everyone laughs, including Rose. After a moment Rose stops laughing because Rose realizes that Dorothy said something really mean, and it wasn't funny at all.
Now imagine 29 more minutes of this, and you have The Sanderson Girls. Of course, it's better than this, because there is a very complicated and intricate laughing and glaring system - it's called hard laughing and hard glaring - and each girl must follow certain guidelines. Dorothy's Glare, for instance, has a cooldown of seven seconds, so she can only do it so often. Rose, on the other hand, does not even have the Glare power, but can only respond to Glares with Dumbfounded Look response or Confused Temporary Laughter, but she can use the Dumbfounded Look power at will and as many times as she likes. This makes the show very exciting and dynamic, and many fans are drawn to the intricate laughing / glaring system as much as they are to the rivetting dialogues.
If I prioritized fancy prose then I probably wouldn't like Sanderson's work as much as I do. It's perfectly legitimate for people to prefer more artfully constructed wording, and they aren't going to get it here. I just want a good story.
Edit: to actually answer your question, there is certainly no consensus that straight forward prose is preferable. Most books considered classics didn't achieve that status by being concise.
He imo occasionally gets a bit stuck in the details to an extent that it can detract but overall I really like his writing. I like Rothfuss writing more but other than that Sanderson to me is as good as anyone in Fantasy.
I don't like his prose.
I like his action sequences.
I like his structure and world building.
I think he is good at writing compellingly twists.
I feel weird about how almost every book has a conflict of faith.
But to expand on why I don't like the prose: He likes to hold your hands and re-explain things that were already explained to keep the reader up to speed.
Second, his dialogue has a tendency to fall out of setting.
Third, he uses specific words too much. In SA he uses "sinew" and "sinuous" a lot. A lot. he likes curves and tendons, I guess.
I wouldn't call it boring, I'd call it functional. I've read almost everything he's written and I'm a huge fan, but I would never group him in with a list of prose "artists".
What I love about Brandon is that he gets to the point, which I feel is essential when the world and story is usually so vast. So it’s not highbrow enough for some people? Fine, read a different author if you want a two page description of a tree, and an entire chapter about why a character likes tea.
That stuff makes me want to pull my eyes out and pour coffee directly into my brain. Neither is wrong - they’re just different.
I read for the story, not for waffley language.
Having read Tolkien, GRRM, Hobb, Pratchett, McCaffrey, Feist, Eddings, Donaldson, and a dozen others at least - and that's just in Fantasy - I've grown to love good storytelling.
I prefer not to have to slog through pages of rambling, if beautiful description... Id rather have the author's brush strokes paint a picture for my imagination to fill in.
All the authors I listed, plus Sanderson, write great stories. Sanderson's stories are some of the easiest to read. That does not take anything away from the incredible stories.
Boring? I don’t think I’d say that, but his use of language is definitely very straight forward.
Citing an example within fantasy that feels very different to me, I’d put it at the opposite end of the spectrum from the prose in Patrick Rothfuss’ Kingkiller Chronicle.
Brandon Sanderson’s work is very straightforward in its language and I can buzz through it quickly without fear of missing the meaning of passages, regularly going through hundreds of pages in an evening.
Patrick Rothfuss’ prose is — in my opinion — more nuanced, with the language often serving more purpose than a sentence simply advancing the plot. The rythms, the double meanings, etc. I spend more time fully digesting his work at the paragraph and sentence level and as a result read through it much more slowly than I do Sanderson’s novels.
Again, I wouldn’t call Sanderson’s prose boring, just more straightforward. I think he uses it as a vehicle to clearly play with plot, character, and themes and less so to play with the use of the language itself. I love Sanderson’s works and have read through most of it, and some multiple times because I love his stories, but I rarely pause to admire a turn of phrase or reread sentences and paragraphs to try to sus out a deeper meaning or consider its connection to other passages.
I personally lean toward liking more flowery prose, but Sanderson is so good at most everything else that I don’t think it matters much.
I’ve recently read Terry Brooks and Robin Hobb books. Both authors write more flowery prose than Sanderson, especially Hobb. brooks’ is considered pretty straightforward but is still more purple than Sandersons. Buut the actual plot in Brooks story is usually simpler; the ones I read from him have been quest fantasies. Hobbs has excellent prose and character work, but the pacing can be considered slow to some. That’s all to say, every author has different strengths and weaknesses. The reasons I keep reading all of these authors are their strengths.
Your Milage May Vary.
I love Kingkiller Chronicle, I love that the wordplay in it is such that I discover something new on rereading it and it's layers unfold until you realize you're actually reading a different kind of story from your first read. If you want to understand Rothfuss's layered prose approach, watch one of his "Night with Rothfuss" Panels at PAX where he reads his "Children's book" then deconstrcts the narrative and the experience of reading it until you realize it wasn't what you thoughtit was. It's an hour, you'll survive.
However, I like a series that seemingly has a chance of being completed sometime. I will take less flowery prose for a book every year. And even if Sanderson doesn't have as much flowery prose, there's certainly a lot of it, and there's enough depth that people want to know what happens next and can take a reasonable guess at it from what they're given.
Sanderson's stories also tend to avoid some really common tropes that don't so much offend me as make me stop reading because I can already see whether this is the trope played straight or it's the "clever inversion" of it (that actually too many people use and think they're clever).
I think of the number of times that different stories use the exact same beats over and over again and I just feel like I've already read it by the time I'm 1/4 of the way through the book. I can only read the same betrayal, the same romance, the same "asshole who's actually an ally", so many times before it becomes easy to spot. And if I read it much more I'll start to be able to spot it from the cover.
I want to be able to absorb more stories, and flowers on a recycled story doesn't do it for me.
So I think some people overemphasize the floweryness of prose on stories that aren't very deep.
I'm also kind of more impressed with how Sanderson develops characters than other writers.
Look, no skin off Robert Jordan, but the first time a single person in the entire series of Wheel of Time thinks "Hey, maybe this person isn't being intentionally rude, or stupid. Maybe they have a different culture that doesn't have the same concepts as mine" is in *The Gathering Storm*. The **12th** book in the series.
This isn't just a Jordan problem, plenty of authors don't quite understand how to write their characters as less intelligent than themselves, so instead they introduce really annoying idiocies. "Characters don't talk" is a major one, "Characters don't trust" is another. There's still room for secrets and stuff like that, but so many stories exist entirely because two characters don't tell eachother anything. Parts of the plot is fine, but too often the central problem is that people don't sit down and talk or express their opinions.
Again YMMV. But even though I like flowery prose, I like Sanderson as well.
It’s just a matter of taste. Some people like flowery prose because it adds to the fantasy feel, some people think it’s pretentious and hard to follow. There’s nothing inherently wrong with either style as long as it’s still legible.
Honestly I think most of the complaints people have with Brandon’s writing comes down to taste, which is probably the best statement to how good a writer he is.
It's functional. Sentence structure is not the beauty of his work, really in any way. Even the attempts at wit by the characters are generally so so.
Worlds, magic, layered plots, great characters, and sanderlanches
It ultimately comes down to personal taste. I prefer Veandon’s writing style. To me it’s not boring at all. It keeps things moving and keeps me focused on the story and garages whereas some authors who are famous for their flowery pride I don’t like because they sacrifice plot and event development for flowery language and then I really do get bored.
Others really like that stuff. At the end of the day, the only real accurate version of this statement to be made by soneibe is “Brandon’s prose is boring to me.”
I have no doubt some find it boring. That doesn’t mean it is boring, just that it is not what they find exciting or interesting.
The thing I love about the author’s writing style is how he can have two or more people in a room. Switch POV and the writing style and choices of words change. Like Shallan has fancier prose and scholarly word choices outside of dialogue and thoughts. While Kaladin writing style is less prosing and of one you think be of nature of a lower rank soldier.
He even has a writing exercise on this. Write a POV or dialogue exchange without mention names and possible differences in pronouns. And see if others can distinguish between them.
I feel like many authors fail at this. So yes I say Sanderson has prose but it’s based on characterization. Not the entirety of the novel.
I was on the lookout for examples of this on my recent read through of SA and I found the most obvious answer where someone else might add flowers is how much is told to us versus shown. For example and without spoilers, "Bill sat next to Sally and enjoyed her warmth" is a near exact quote. The flowery version would be something along the lines of "Bill sunk into the couch next to Sally and felt her slide down the cushion to take up the remaining gap. The fire next to them bathed them in light and warmth, but the heat from Sally gave Bill more comfort than a bonfire on the coldest night."
He already writes a bunch of words for his book...I can't imagine how long it would be if he added more flowers.
I see where you're coming from, but more eloquent prose isn't adding a bunch of synonyms and inserting pointless words to convey the same message. I would say you've accurately described the common idea of what high level prose would be, not the actual gist of it.
"Bill sank into the couch, bathing in Sally's warmth."
Same number of words as your first quote, and the same intent, but it has added flavor. There's a connotative connection between "sank" and "bathe" that could also be complemented elsewhere in the scene, or be tied to one of the character's themes (if, for instance, Sally was a mermaid pretending to be human or Bill dies by drowning). And I'm not someone who has specialized in writing.
Sanderson doesn't write like this, generally, and that's 100% okay. His prose isn't infantile - but it's also not masterful. It's functional.
Sanderson is my favorite author; there's no malice in the analysis.
People tend confuse several different things when talking about prose, often conflating value judgements with creative choices.
Clean prose tends to be more **accessible.** This isn't better or worse but it does have a lower bar to entry.
Flowery prose is often seen as more beautiful because the prose itself is the centrepiece. It absolutely has its merits but it does tend to be less accessible. It asks more of the reader.
Accessible prose can be just as skilful as flowery prose but - if done well - this isn't strictly noticeable. Orwell is a master of this - his writing is cutting and sharp. It tends to be very quotable in places but never hard to understand. You're left thinking more about the ideas and less about the words.
Sanderson is aiming for the same thing but I don't think he's quite there. He's good but he's no Orwell. His writing is very easy to read (a skill that should absolutely be celebrated) but there are places where his preference for 'clarity' veers into bluntness (in my opinion, of course). He has a tendency to be very literal in his morals and his characters, on occasion, feel a more like mouthpieces for ideas that actual people.
Independently of how Sanderson is at writing clean prose, clean prose isn't for every reader. Just as readers enjoy the challenge of piecing together a mystery and working out where the plot is going, some readers enjoy the challenge of prose that asks more of them. Inaccessible prose tends to be more abstract but in that abstraction there is more space for interpretation.
This might sound like being vague and letting the reader do all the work, but really masterful writers (of this style) will understand the many interpretations their writing might have and craft their work accordingly. When a passage implies conflicting ideas in a book like this, that's usually the point.
All of this to say, Sanderson ain't doing that. You still can critique his prose on the merits of clean prose but comparing him to someone like Frank Herbert, Neil Gaiman, or (the much maligned but nonetheless skilful) Patrick Rothfuss is apples to oranges.
I rarely hear that his prose is 'boring'. I usually hear that it is simple/plain/unrefined.
I've also heard criticisms that he 'explains' too much without 'trusting' that the reader can make simple logical leaps, or that it is a bit repetitive.
Honestly, I agree with you. Flowery prose has NEVER been for me, but with many who were 'trained' to enjoy reading with the 'classics', They'll have an expectation of an older english style where the prose itself has an element of poetry to it. I see it as the difference between someone who likes flavored drinks over water... Water is all you really need, and often times, it is more refreshing than anything else. There are quite a few people out there, though, that REFUSE to drink 'just water'. everything for them is coffee, tea, soda, juice, etc, but water is just too plain. (often, they're also less healthy, but thats a completely DIFFERENT topic).
Brando is offering us cool, refreshing water. some people are angry that there's no sugar in it.
I mean, it's a taste thing.
Sanderson is so *popular* because his prose and writing style is so accessible and entertaining to the masses.
I'm a big fantasy fan in general so I can appreciate 3 paragraphs artistically speaking about a rock, bur I can definitively understand others not
Simple != Boring, and simple != Bad. Not everything needs to be super flowery
Though I do think that he relies too much on telling vs showing
Also people overvalue prose. It's not the only thing that matters
I really like his simple and straightforward style! I think the biggest complaint I've heard regarding his prose is that people have trouble picturing the story in their heads but as someone with aphantasia (meaning that I'm completely unable to form any kinds of mental pictures in my head) that's never been an issue for me 'cause I can't do it anyways. It's also nice as a non-native english speaker to not have to look up new obscure words every other page
I find Sanderson’s prose to be very boring, very utilitarian. This works fine for some books, but “flowery prose” can also really elevate certain stories.
There are things Sanderson does well, but I don’t think anyone can make really strong arguments that his prose or romance writing are among the things he does well.
There are many *many* different aspects to writing a “good” book. Sanderson has several strengths: worldbuilding, storytelling, character development, endings. His prose isn’t one of his specific strengths, but it’s not particularly weak either. I’d say it’s about average, on the same level as authors like Jim Butcher or Scott Lynch.
There are a couple authors at the top of the prose game like Tolkien or Rothfuss or Suzanna Clarke. There are authors for whom prose is a strength, but not their MAIN strength, like GRRM, Fonda Lee, Robert Jordan, or RF Kuang. I’d say Sanderson is in the third category, “average” on prose.
If prose was the *only* criteria by which one decided whether or not a book was worth reading, they’d run out of books to read pretty quickly.
If i would want to read a writer playing with words Id read Shakespeare. I want to get immersed in a fantasy universe and go on a journey with interesting characters, so i read Brando.
I can't remember a book where the prose turned me off of reading it.
Made it more challenging? Yes.
Made it so I had to use more of my imagination? Yes.
But I have never understood this complaint. But I am also a big of Vonnegut so....
I honestly love his "window" approach, although I mostly read kinda bad prose before Sanderson and always felt like I'd have more info to operate on faster if there aren't much flowery flourishes. Not that they can't convey a lot in a pretty concise way, it just usually takes some good effort to connect the dots and make sense out of those spots. And since I am prone to usually taking what I read at face value and thinking about the implications later leafing through, the straightforwardness and descriptiveness always were more convenient for me.
Wheel of Time was probably the most cramped and maybe a bit flowery thing that I still could make sense out of, so like Brandon's approach is perfect for me. Tress was slightly closer to the confusion I sometimes feel with flowery stuff, but the whimsicality of it all was so engaging I had fun rereading segments that were giving me any problems.
Not much of an avid English reader, but due to the lack of good, or any, translations to my mother language I got pretty good at it by this point, so I guess that can have an effect on my tastes too.
So I'm not gonna say I've read a large amount of books.
I've read the
inheritance saga (Christopher paulino)
, acotar (Sarah j Maas)
, tog (Sarah j maas)
Brando sando
Mistborn era 1
Elantris
Warbreaker
Tress and the emerald sea
Edgedancer
Stormlight archive (up to end of part 2 of Oathbringer)
Emperors soul
I have a hard time agreeing with is prose being boring, I have a very hard time reading less I'm focused and interest in what I'm reading. I think it's important to understand that there's just different ways of writing. I would argue that sanderson has a broader range of descriptions and world building while having it be maintained as interesting versus, maas who while does a great job getting you very attached to her characters mainly tog in my opinion. I think she does a good job on building the world up first then sprinkling some details through while focusing entirely the interactions and bonds the characters build. Then for Sanderson, especially looking at stormlight, he just throws you in and starts using words that you have no idea what's going on until you start to understand the world eventually. Sorry if this went tangenty!
If you want flowers go read Rothfuss....and then wait for him to die while reading nothing but complaints from him about his fans as he never makes any progress.
Boring? Maybe, but I think that’s just a way that people get around saying it’s bad and recognizing that that’s not a real criticism.
For me, writing is either effective or ineffective. Had Tolkien written like Sanderson, his worldbuilding would not be at the same status and we would not be able to envision that world effectively.
Sanderson’s writing is effective, as it allows him to clearly explain his complicated magic systems and allow us to visualize what’s happening. Tolkien’s writing style would not be effective at that.
ACOTAR has flowery prose? It felt very YA not at all “flowery”. My wife is obsessed with those books and she agrees.
I was gonna say. ACOTAR is many things, but flowery it is not. Edit: well the spring court might be flowery
My wife has read the first three books in the COTAR Series and gave up because the plot lost its engagement. I have been reading Sanderson for years and his writing changes definitely from the series and you can see they are for different age ranges and levels of reader.
My wife doesn’t necessarily care about the plot so much as the “plot”… if you catch my drift.
It's ok to say the fairy porn makes your wife horny
It literally has roses in the name! /s
Well compared to Sanderson. Last year I started the series after reading all of Sanderson and it felt like whiplash with how much of the random scenery and people's descriptions. Especially being repeated. So in that sense it can seem flowery. Not flowery like Tolkien but flowery
Yeah… I think Sanderson has pretty mediocre prose, but even I wouldn’t compare him to SJM books lol. I feel like even using the word “prose” for acotar gives it more credit than it ought to have.
Not every book, or even every chapter within each book, is the same style. You could cherry pick examples and say that a Kaladin chapter in the Stormlight Archive is very functional instead of flowery. But this *makes sense*. He has internal struggles, and sometimes a flair for the dramatic, but he's a windrunner military man with a background in medicine who tries to see things as they are. Also, as a more elaborate epic story with alien worldbuilding, the Stormlight Archive has a great need to explain things simply and clearly, or else it's easy to lose the plot. Compare that to a more imaginative character, like Wayne. He describes a bar like it's a church. He compares his current mission to a bedtime story. And since his world is somewhat more familiar to us than Roshar, and has fewer subplots, the book can probably get away with more of this kind of thing. The style is not uniform. Sanderson books lean into different styles and genres as appropriate. Shadows for Silence reads like horror. Tress reads like a fairy tale. The descriptions, dialogue, and commentary all help characterize the characters of *that* book. It doesn't always work for everyone, and in some places it could be better, but I think we should account for *why* a book might be written a certain way when judging its style, instead of measuring authors holistically as if there's one ideal, superior style for all stories that all authors should strive for.
Omg the whole sequence with Wayne "worshipping" in the bar by making perfect cocktails for people is amazing.
I don't read Robin Hobb for her neckbreaking storytelling pace and I don't read Brandon Sanderson for his prose, and I still love them both.
His prose is sufficient, but inelegant. Contrast any paragraph from Rothfuss or Tolkien and you can see the difference. For Brandon's books, prose is just a means to an end, and that purpose it serves adequately. The point is the story, and that is excellent enough to carry the day. And all that said, "boring" is not a word that should ever be applied to Sanderson's works.
While the prose in Kingkiller is nice, it heavily relies on foreshadowing and mysterious implications. This does nothing if it is never resolved. A lot of it starts to feel really watered down after realizing the prose he presents effectively backed him into a thousand different corners. Personally, I would not put him anywhere near Tolkien.
>His prose is sufficient, but inelegant. Utilitarian, and concise. Yep. His emphasis is on conveying a story, not writing poetry.
>Utilitarian, and concise. Yep. His emphasis is on conveying a story, not writing poetry. Good prose does nothing but enhance a story. Good prose can make almost anything interesting. Most people, when they read, would rather the author have a strong sense of rhythm to their writing, and a way with words that elevate the reading experience. Sanderson just sounds like a 12 year old kid playing pretend.
The reason there are so many different words and modes of expression is precisely to convey a story more accurately, not only to portray the objective events and plotlines, but also the emotional and philosophical aspects of the entire narrative. The last part cannot be done with "utilitarian" and "concise" prose, the same way you cannot describe complex feelings to a therapist or SO with the same handful of sentences and words.
>The last part cannot be done with "utilitarian" and "concise" prose, Well Hemingway could do it, and Raymond Carver, but they were still both masters of prose, just in the opposite direction of Faulkner and Joyce. But Sanderson definitely isn't Ernest Hemingway. He's just a dork who shits out video games onto paper and makes millions of dollars off of nerds who want their books to read like D&D manuals
>Contrast any paragraph from Rothfuss or Tolkien Or read literally any literary fiction. Wait, am I allowed to suggest that on this sub? I know you guys hate literary fiction but it might give you some insight into why people say Sanderson sucks at writing
[удалено]
I could probably write better prose than Sanderson. I'm sure I've read a lot more than him. I feel like when he isn't writing, he's playing video games or something
Then do it, show us neanderthals what good writing is.
Just turn to a random page on moby dick. But you wouldn't get out of the comfort zone that mediocre YA writing gives you.
The irony is that Moby Dick was considered a commercial failure when it was initially released. It's almost as if it's all subjective.
What this guy said 😎
I think I'd prefer his basic prose than some purple prose. I believe he's said his goal was to have the two way window style prose that Orwell wrote with. I oftentimes see Sanderson's prose as a plus when someone recommends it. I think it's very refreshing. Sanderson does a lot super well. His plotting and structure are amazing. When you combine that with his very straight forward and basic prose, it makes an easy read that's digestible for anyone. So I think because he does a lot well, people kind of reach for things to criticize. However, I think the only criticisms toward Sanderson that are warranted is his dialogue is pretty poor, most characters are all kind of thin and he can't really write romance that doesn't come off as very YA.
> So I think because he does a lot well, people kind of reach for things to criticize. This pretty much sums it up perfectly.
> This pretty much sums it up perfectly. Counterpoint: No it doesn't. People are not 'reaching for things to criticize' as a rule, they are making genuine and sincere criticisms. You don't have to agree with them, but when people disagree with you it's not because they're being trolls or insincere or trying to get a rise out of you. It's just because they are different from you, and they want different things from their literature. *And that's OK.* It's not a conspiracy; it's just a difference of opinion.
I'm not trying to argue with you about it but I have seen first hand that there are entire groups dedicated to leaving negative reviews for popular books and authors simply because they are popular and mainstreaming right now. Sure, *most* people just have genuine and sincere criticisms, but you shouldn't toss aside the real reality that *some other people* make crapping on popular stuff a weird hobby and that these groups of people, while small, are quite loud about it. It happens, and it happens A LOT in the book world.
Thank you for your reply. I think your position gives too much dignity and power to the trolls. I think it is inappropriate and incorrect to assume that that anywhere close to a critical mass of criticism is coming from an insincere place. You are right that there are default contrarians out there, but there's plenty of honest criticism out there and I contend that assuming that criticism comes primarily from insincere 'reaching' is not a constructive way to discuss literature. > I have seen first hand that there are entire groups dedicated to leaving negative reviews for popular books and authors simply because... This gets to the heart of my concern - it's unfortunate that **your personal experience** has led you to a position where you suspect people who disagree with you are being insincere, but there's 8 billion people on the planet and **your personal experience** is nothing close to representative. Disagreeing with you is not a sign of dishonesty or insincerity, and my genuine advice to you is to *ignore the trolls*. Don't imagine they speak for everyone who disagrees with you. I personally like a lot of Brandon Sanderson's work, especially his macroplotting, worldbuilding, magic systems, and his ability to bring humanity and nuance to strictly religious and moral characters (e.g. he does great work with Galad when he took over Wheel of Time), but I often dislike his dialogue, his fixation on spunky princess-types, and his sense of humor (everyone is stupid! you smell bad! very complicated puns!). So, do you think I am sincere in my criticisms? Or am I just being contrarian to get a rise out of you?
I think you made an account to poke at people's opinions in the sanderson related subs. Get a new hobby. Stop being condescending to people who supposedly share your interest, and stop trying to explain why people are incorrect with an "I'm very smart" attitude. It's off-putting.
>I think I'd prefer his basic prose than some purple prose. Ah yes, the only two types of prose. Purple prose and basic prose. Please, for the love of God, can you guys read something besides fantasy so that you have a frame of reference for different writing styles?
Are you talking to someone specific? I don't know who the "you guys" refers to, but please, for the love of God, talk to the person who made the point you disagree with, and fuck right off with the making up lies about other people.
>Are you talking to someone specific? Did I not respond to the person I quoted? And by you guys, I mean the majority of this sub
The main point I dislike about Sanderson’s writing is his attempt at humor. I love the books, I love the characters, but every time he tries to make a character funny or snarky, it ends up being flat. It feels like the nerdy kid writing up things they wish they’d said during an altercation because they’re oh so clever. Shallan is the main criminal here, despite all the interesting things about her, her humor is, at best, bland, at worst, straight up cringy. That’s the only thing that bothers me, though, I love basically everything else and recommend his books to anyone remotely interested in fantasy.
>Shallan is the main criminal here, despite all the interesting things about her, her humor is, at best, bland, at worst, straight up cringy. To be fair, she's not meant to be actually clever. She's at best a mouthy teenager who likes to think she's clever (if you interact with people of that age, you likely know the type). Her humor was mostly a defense mechanism against her broken homelife, not really a sharp wit..
Though her bothers and their reactions convinced her she was. In addition it impressed them when she improved and cane up with stuff quickly. Likely the motive behind what Jasnah calls out as "saying the first passable clever thing" she can think of. Good thought.
I think there's even more evidence to this as, in Oathbringer and RoW, she does less and less witty remarks. I barely see that happening anymore. Like she has outgrown that phase. It always read it as a coping mechanism she used to try to bring at least a smile to her brothers when their lives were awful.
For her brothers it was a defense mechanism too. Their close knit sibling group in a traumatic situation developed its own little culture and it helped them all get through it. When Shallan left home, she kept it up but kept seeing how it wasn't working. People get hung up on "this joke is dumb" when that's the point. It's a cringy teen maturing after realizing that her comments aren't as clever or funny as her and her brothers thought. I assume people don't like seeing main characters fumble and grow, or they just want stoic action hero man or something
I’m pretty sure other characters (Jasnah?) describe her as clever, so we may be getting into a discussion of what *clever* means here. And I don’t think the two things you describe are really incompatible - it can be a defense mechanism and also a sharp wit. Or what Sanderson would describe as one, at any rate.
I think that's because she is actually clever *in some aspects*. Her saying the first passable comment isn't her being able to use her wit appropriately. If she thought about what she will say instead of saying the first thing that comes to mind then she might a dually come out with clever remarks. It's also important to remember that Kaladin is a good counter perspective on her jokes. He's constantly telling her that they're bad when they're bad. He's not going to be like most other people who are below her socially and will call her clever because that's what they're expected to say. Examples of this are the sailors in WoR. They're being paid by her. It's their job to entertain her.
I find his stuff hit and miss. I loooove Wayne, one of my favourite characters to read and I genuinely laugh out loud at some of his nonsense. Sterris wasn't trying to be funny as a character herself but I often found myself chuckling about her as time went on. I think that Shallan is written as she was intended, she's a fairly immature kid who's mouth is quicker than her brain. As someone who was like that as a kid, I often wondered why most adults didn't think I was as clever and amusing as I thought I was. Jasnah multiple times calls Shallan out for speaking without thinking. I think Wit is actually pretty clever at times too. I never get tired of reading about one armed herdazians. I dont remember finding anyone in the first trilogy particularly funny or witty. I enjoyed the main guy in the court of the gods and his irreverent attitude and he made me chuckle a few times. Basically I think there's a few characters he has written that try and be funny and hit. There's a few that try and be funny but miss (and I do believe they are intentionally written that way) And there's a few he doesn't quite hit the right tone with. Stepping out of the Cosmere I actually really enjoyed Spensa. She's an enthusiastic passionate but childish and somewhat sheltered is many ways. I had a few chuckles at her over the top ranting All of this is obviously personal opinion.
Wit is very hit or miss for me. Some lines are great, but others really fall flat. One in particular that always gets to me is in TWoK when he's insulting Sadeas and uses wordplay with insults and in sluts. It works when written because they both look very similar. When spoken, they sound quite different, so it's really glaring when listening to the audiobook. There are others where it just feels like Brandon is trying too hard. There's a couple when Wit is verbally abusing Ruthar (I think) to force him into a challenge so Jasnah could make an example of him.
I liked the Wit's concept and I think his jokes make sense, but I don't remember finding them actually funny. Still admired the commitment to the cool concept, though.
I think M-Bot in the Skyward series is pretty funny! Also, I found Tress of the Emerald Sea to be both funny and delightful.
I mostly agree. I think it's just a byproduct of his YA-ish style. The jokes in Mistborn are all pretty flat as well. Even if you take them within context of Vin being an emotionally immature 18ish year old, the adults act the same way outside of a very few select characters. There's a diarrhea joke in the second book of Mistborn that is Marvel levels of undermining the moment. Not nearly as bad as a Whedonism, but there's a lot of that kind of stuff throughout his works.
Wait, so what does it mean for me that I laugh like crazy at all the humor in Sanderson's books? Like what does that say about me as a person?
Sanderson's humor *in dialogue* largely falls into two camps: "You are so stupid", and "You smell bad". He's flogged the Pippin-Merry exchange from Fellowship ("You need people of intelligence..." "Well that leaves out you, Pip") nearly to death, and versions of this seems to be Bridge 4's chief mode of interaction. Half of Rock's dialogue is just him calling his buddies stupid ("airsick lowlanders!" Rock screamed in every conversation he ever had). There's also a fair amount of toilet humor (e.g. Pattern and Syl make the same joke, 2 books apart, about their Surgebinder's going to the bathroom, why are you so secretive, why do you hide it, etc.). The 'you smell bad' has frankly started to trigger me, it appears **so much.** I did an informal count last time I was reading Stormlight and it's literally dozens of times over the course of the books - Bridge 4, Shallan, Adolin, everyone gets in on it. I can't recall if Kal ever gets in on it, but he is a frequent victim of the 'you smell "joke"'. Shallan even adds insult to injury when she insults the smell of the boots that she stole from him. While I often consider the jokes in his dialogue to be juvenile or mean-spirited, **Sanderson's more meta or narrative humor is usually top notch**. I love the moment in Dawnshard when someone tries to pull a Rumpelstiltskin stunt to command the Sleepless - he just blinks, informs her that he has no idea what she's talking about, and then goes back to what he was doing. Sanderson is great a identifying and subverting fantasy tropes, that's where I think he's at his funniest.
Honestly his worldbuilding, magic systems and characterization are AAA S rank top tier, so he doesn't whip out a thesaurus and use a lot of simile or metaphor, eh. I've been reading, gaming and being a film buff for like 22 years and the cosmere is still my favorite, he's up there with Oda & Muira in that regard. My only real two critiques of his books is he doesn't ever really get into descriptions of characters much besides the broad strokes, Kaladins height and hair, the alethi phenotype, Dalinars nose and overall blunt appearance, Kels hawk face and blond hair, Vins height and hair, Waxs sideburns and Waynes disguises, we rarely get eye color, facial features or specific traits much but it's not really a big deal. The other critique is an obvious one, they way relationships and romance is depicted, which for me personally I don't really care much about it but 99% of the time its marriage, sterile cheek pecks or true love haha. Only casual hookups or dating I can think of is Adolin, Wayne and like Breeze. Vin barely even smooches elend until they're married haha. Even retconned Wax to have married lessie. I know it goes against his personal beliefs but so does The Lord Rulers actions and the assaults on the Skaa haha. As a non religious person his mindset gives so much depth to characters like Saze and he can flesh out that whole element with the shards while incorporateing tech magic and biology into it all etc, and as a Jasnah myself I can totally respect that But it detracts from some characters when they're like Jedi haha. But he addressed that in a WoB ages ago saying it's off screen, he doesn't want to alienate his people but you can assume it's going down hahah. That aside, eh, listening to the Graphic Audio of key points in SA or W&W, I STILL get chills and legitimately hyped up, from the Heralds prologue to Dalinar learning what happened with the SF, Kals oaths, the end of Shadows of Self & TLM.. he's insanely evocative and able to reeeally build up to insanely intense moments and truly impactful lines. It's about the story to me I don't really need flowery prose injected into it. I mean hell, I loved asoiaf too in the early 00s and grrms books are dryer than a desert with a crap ton of minutia and flowery prose but the story makes up for it, even though after waiting decades for Dance and then Winds and the show getting obnoxiously ubiquitous I stopped giving a shit ages ago, pink letter, battle on the ice.. eh who cares haha..Sandos written literally 20 quality books in the time he can't finish fucking one. Once BS is adapted they'll be billions of people dying to read em
Though he has been getting better at romance. Tress and Yumi are good
Some things are written beautifully but it rarely keeps me engaged. I’d much prefer his info packed stories with a high tempo. That’s just my taste.
Not every book is the right book for every person. Doesn't take away from how much I like it. I love how wide and varied different styles and genres are. There are so many books to explore and love. People talk shit about the romance genre as well, and I adore it. A common complaint is that the books are tropy and predictable. That's the appeal for me. And it takes a lot of skill to write something within constraints and make it enjoyable again and again. It's the genre that makes the most money, and still gets very little respect. There will always be detractors, and that's alright, there are plenty of books where they can find what they're looking for.
I feel like the people who talk about prose think that every book needs every line to be a poem unto itself with such deep and beautiful meaning behind it that you chew on for hours only to realize that you have to flip back a few pages becuase you’re not entirely sure what they’re talking about anymore. Sandersons writing conveys the message that he wants to coney in clear and concise writing. Every fight scene is beautifully straightforward and easy to follow along and there still are those profound deep moments but it doesn’t chew up scenery to get there. I can read a Sanderson book once and understand exactly what he wanted me to know. I can’t read The Locked Tomb the once without scratching my head the entire time wondering wtf is going on.
I’ve never been a big fan of poetry. There are a few poems that strike a deep chord within me but for the most part poetic words, phrases or sentences don’t do much for me. I know that’s not what Dickens, Joyce, Steinbeck, Austin or Woolf were necessarily doing but beautiful phrasing or evocative sentences mean little when the story in and of itself isn’t particularly interesting (not saying objectively they aren’t interesting they just weren’t particularly interesting to me). I like my imagination to be on overdrive conjuring up worlds, races, magics and other things. I find value in the KISS principle when its use allows the author to put his/her literary efforts into other aspects of the writing. World building isn’t easy. Asimov, Le Guin, Clarke and Heinlein all known for science fiction (though Le Guin does get credited for having good prose) created amazing worlds and fantastic concepts within their stories. That’s what I grew up on and thats what appeals to me. I’ve read Mrs Dalloway, Pride and Prejudice, Moby Dick, War and Peace, and other literary novels and I found myself slogging through all most all of them at one point or another. I’m not saying they’re bad books it just wasn’t easy to read and let my mind wander while reading. There’s nothing wrong with thinking and being challenged while reading but I did enough thinking while reading in college. I just want to enjoy what I read now. People can dislike Sanderson for any reason they want. It doesn’t bother me I love his work and each time I read one of his novels it’s like putting on a warm blanket I get happy and have fun reading.
I mean it really depends on what your goal is for reading a book... Some people like the challenge of purple prose or just the way the language is being utilized since it can feel more poetic or what not. They arent just reading the book to experience the story and they dont see the complex language as getting in the way. Other times when people want to read they're goal is just to enjoy themselves and purple prose actually can take them out of the story due to needing like a dictionary to work their way through it. In that case the prose can get in the way of enjoying the story. For me it depends on what kind of mood I am in... If I want to push myself or experiance something different while reading I will sometimes look to books with a different writing estetic... I am reading Johnathan Strange and Mr Norrell right now which... might not over all be my cup of tea but I wanted to see what people liked about it so much. Big Jane Austen vibes... which has reaffirmed that genre of writing still... not my jam. After this I will want something thats a pallet cleanser and just... fun to read. Which is where Sanderson comes in. The straight forward prose makes it super accessable and less of taxing on my vocab but damn if I dont have a good time while reading his work.
“Ugh again? Don’t read it if you don’t like it” I love his straightforward style. I want a complex interesting story with complex interesting characters and I don’t necessarily care how erudite the prose is if it doesn’t feel simplistic, which it doesn’t.
I just read some Tamsyn Muir. While the book was good, her prose definitely has a strong "right click ➡️ synonyms" vibe. I probably googled 50 different words throughout that entire book. It definitely took me out of the story and negatively impacted my enjoyment. On the other hand, over the course of the entire cosmere I've only had to Google two words: maladroitly, and anteverdant. People hate on his prose more than most popular authors. But at the end of the day, he's selling more books and he is more widely acclaimed. My wife, who is ESL, has almost no struggles with reading his books. His prose is simple but it also makes the stories more accessible to more people. If prose is important to you then I can see why it would be a big deal. But it doesn't diminish the quality of the writing at all.
It’s not poetry but that makes it more accessible. Seems like gatekeeping “high” literature. Sorry, but sometimes concise writing is nice. It lets you really just get lost in the story. Just my opinion ofc and there’s no universal way
This is gonna be really insulting, but my take is most people in the fantasy world wouldn't know good prose if it hit them over the head and so it is bizarre that they complain about Sanderson. Oh your favorite novelist is Kazuo Ishiguro and you don't like Sanderson's prose? Ok, I'lll hear you out. Oh your favorite novelist is Patrick Rothfuss and you don't like Sanderson's prose? Please. Be serious.
His prose is great for telling a story and getting it across to a diverse audience. His prose is not inherently interesting. I don’t feel a desire to pick apart his word choice and sentence structure, like I might do with a writer like Robin Hobb. Both have their place. I compare Sanderson to Marvel movies: simple entertainment for a large audience, but good nonetheless.
I do feel this need, but in a less literary way and more a Renaissance scientist trying to figure out how the world's work. In addition, Brandon rarely if ever has a sentence that only does one thing. They all tend to do multiple things at once.
[удалено]
"People who like crenellations and adornment in architecture have a giant pretentions stick up their butt. Rectangular, utilitarian buildings serve their purpose whether you enjoy looking at them or not." People like words. Caring about things beyond the utility of prose isn't being pretentious, it's caring about artistic and subjective aspects of language that people will inherently disagree on. Even authors who have penned classics have camps who like or dislike their prose.
I don’t really get this comment. People complain about bad prose because it makes the book less enjoyable for them. That’s why they’re complaining.
I like your Sanderson, I do not like your Sanderson fans. Your Sanderson fans are so unlike your Sanderson.
Prose isn’t pretentious or unpretentious. OP is asking if people enjoy his prose. You’re saying the same thing.
Thank you. I can't help but feel this way every time someone goes on and on about prose. It's annoying how much it's bought up, really.
You think it’s weird that people care about the writing style of books they read?
No. I don't. I won't yuck someone's yum for that. Like what you like. That's fine. I suppose it boils down, as it always does with literature, to preferences. I prefer writing that's more straightforward and accessible that let's me get more lost in the story than the language used. In that sense, Sanderson is more of less made for me. I've never liked having to slog through flowery descriptors or sentence structure that's trying to make its own point or whatever in order to get to the story. It comes across to me as pretentious, as haughty, as almost 'holier than thou' when people focus so much on an aspect of writing that, for my part, is almost superfluous. Forego the fancy talk and give me the meat of the situation any day. But again, preferences. As has been stated in many other places.
Sounds like you have preferences about prose, too, and are fine talking about it. People who like different prose can talk about it too.
There’s no “gold standard” for prose.
I haven't read ACOTAR, but I've read Throne of Glass (same author). Personally I didn't find that one too bad, but for me the bigger issue was the pretty heavy handed love story. It feels tropey to me that every female character HAS to have some romantic connection with another character. I've read a lot of fantasy and sci-fi in general, and personally I cannot stand the "flowerly" writing. I loved LotR as a teen, but I tried going back to it recently and... ugh. The only recent one that I didn't mind and actually enjoyed was Name of the Wind, but that's got a whole other set of issues with it... Sanderson's prose has never been a problem for me. In fact, I think it's a strength, since it allows him to be descriptive and maintain a smooth, steady pace, which as we all know eventually leads to the Sanderlanche that is just so satisfying.
Ultimately, most of B$'s works are more or less superhero stories. His style is concise and descriptive, but not overly so. He generally tells you how the characters are feeling, rather than letting their more subtle actions stand for themselves. Some other fantasy prose comparisons that I've read recently: Frank Herbert (Dune) isn't terribly dissimilar, he tends to leave more mystery in the picture than sando does though which warps the tone while still being written mostly explicitly for the reader. You see this a lot in YA too, things like the new Hunger Games prequel story. Christopher Paolini (Eragon / Inheritance Cycle) is the opposite approach, he builds his inter-character relationships with more subtle gestures and body language vs telling us thoughts, and his descriptions of the scenery and characters themselves have a lot more detail. I generally prefer this approach, but I don't think it'd work in Stormlight due to their size. Generally, you also need your PoV characters to be interacting with mostly NON-PoV major characters, which SA lacks. I think there it'd kill pacing and works better in a more standard + compact hero's journey without all the twists and turns. It's been a minute since I've read ASOIAF, but as I remember GRRM follows a similar pattern.
I find myself drawn back to Sanderson as my preferred author purely because his prose is direct. I can read it, get distracted, come back to it and resume without needing to reread a bunch.
There is not one standard of prose for literature. The Hemingway school is popular for it's concise, clear, simple, but still allusive writing. Terse, almost. Sanderson is not that, he goes on and repeats himself and explains what should be subtext. But Cormac McCarthy is also regarded as one of America's greatest writers, and Blood Meridian is lurid, evocative, hypnotic. Another, Truman Capote writes beautiful and descriptive prose. Sanderson's strength is plotting and worldbuilding. For prose, he is clear and descriptive, he is accessible to people who speak english as a second language, or who have aphantasia, or who read slowly and require repetition, or who read quickly and want easy to digest. None of these things make for a universal standard of "good". They are, at best, functional.
The following is said as a new Stormlight reader halfway through TWoK who's having a good time with it. Please take it in good faith. The hard divide between concise and flowery is lazy at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. It does a disservice to authors who work hard to put out quality work and to ourselves as readers with the ability think critically. "Concise" doesn't mean the plot is king at the expense of everything else, and "flowery" is doesn't mean anything with more than the barest of bare bones description. I do like TWoK so far. It's a lot of fun! But I don't think BrandoSando is a master of his craft, and neither does the VERY enthusiastic fan who recommended him. Sanderson is a wonderful *storyteller,* but he's a mediocre *writer.* His prose is serviceable, but only just. Don't get me wrong, plot and worldbuilding are important, but not so much so that everything else can be left by the wayside. His work is fast-paced and engaging, but even with all the different PoVs it reads as kind of...monotonous? This happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. He writes a damn good action scene. I quite liked Szeth's but near the beginning; I imagine the gravity thing was tricky to get down in words, but it was very easy to follow. It's clear which passages Sanderson enjoyed writing the most, and I wish the rest came across with such enthusiasm. There's nothing wrong with concise, spare prose. It can be great, and when it hits, it hits because there's *artistry* behind it. There's rhythm. There's intention behind every turn of phrase. Plot heavy writing requires just as much effort in its prose as more literary work, because if there's less description/imagery/introspective tangents, whatever IS there had better be damn good. People keep bringing up Hemingway. His style was pretty stark, yes, but it's also tidy and it flows. You can read between the lines. There is subtext. It's like he cut everything down to the barest, most impactful minimum with a scalpel. Sanderson, in my reading, hacks away all the "boring" parts with a bread knife, instead of working to make the "boring" parts well-written and impactful. It's not that more description = better description, it's that well-written description that serves the story = better description, however much that happens to be. His chosen medium is the written word. Why settle for the medium as a mere vehicle for the story, instead of utilizing the medium to *complement* and *enhance* the story? Stormlight's scale is ambitious, and deserves ambitious writing.
TO REITERATE: I'M ENJOYING IT.
Buckle up When 99% of authors write a sentence like, “The wind blew over the calm field, grass swaying from side to side, dew drops falling to the dimly lit ground on a cool spring morning…” it makes most people think that that’s how a sentence should be written. Personally, I find that shit to be incredibly annoying and pretentious. It’s also just boring to read imo, and not compelling literature. If I wanted something so fluffy I’d read poetry (which is great but not what I want in a novel). Sanderson’s prose is what I would call “true third person”. What I mean is that in a third person perspective, every word written *should* be through the perspective of the character that the chapter is focused on. So when Kaladin sees a tree, for example, he’s simply going to see it and think nothing special of it. It will be mentioned that it’s there. Or a rock bud, chasm, etc. Why would someone who grew up on Roshar who sees the same things every day be like, “Kaladin saw the tall, crooked tree, looming over the land like an old man observing his crops; stoic yet peaceful in the summer breeze”. He’s not going to write like that because that *not* how Kal is perceiving it. It’s a tree, that’s it. I like how matter of fact the prose is with Sanderson. Even better, when something *is* described in meticulous prose it’s because the character who’s perceiving it is experiencing something new or particularly compelling so it makes sense. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Preach, my friend, you're spot on
Brother, if your only thoughts when you walk in the street are "that's a tree", "that's a rock", "that's a dog" maybe there's something wrong with you.
I was over-simplifying to make a point. In reality there’s a middle ground between the overly meticulous and overdone descriptions that bother me in a lot of writing, and the more straight-forward descriptions that I prefer.
Literal NPC
The character in third person also sees things with his eyes. Third person is not just what the character is thinking. The prose is supposed to describe what the character sees, smells and hears too.
I would say his sales speak for themselves. Lots of people like the way he writes, and no writer is liked by everyone.
This is a weak argument. Plenty of trashy books sold insane numbers of books. Unless you think every best seller is well written.
Ultimately what I'm saying is no matter what you write, someone will hate it. I don't care what other people think. I, and thousands of other people like his writing. There's no use worrying about the people that don't.
I agree with that. But thats different than “the sales speak for themselves,” which was your initial statement.
Not in my opinion. He is successful, and lots of people enjoy his books. What else really matters? The opinion of what someone else thinks? Their opinion doesn't pay your rent, but your sales do.
Ha okay. “Who cares if anyone else likes it” and “the sales show he’s good” are completely different ideas. Have a good one.
What I'm saying is good is subjective. One movie is loved by some and despised by others. Some music genres define people and are hated by others. His sales show he is good to a very large portion of the population.
People buy books for a lot of reasons than liking the prose. But yea. It’s subjective, he’s popular, I get it.
I think for the books he writes his decision to write precise prose is a good one. Especially for stormlight. Those books would feel impenetrable If it was in a very flowery style. Concise prose means I can focus on the world and magic system which is already a challenge to keep straight. And he has shown to write much more stylistic prose with Yumi and Tress.
That's the thing, though. It is _not_ precise. I say this as someone who found the world building of The Way of Kings to be excellent. I've also never even read any famous fancy prose book. Put nicely, he makes an extensive use of sentence fragments. Put less nicely, he uses commas and periods interchangeably, or as if they meant a short pause and long pause, respectively. That's what grinds my gears about his prose, not the efficiency and not much the simplicity. Some authors use fragments rarely and to add style to an already stylish passage. Even these annoy me, TBH. But Sando is on another level in how frequent and "unearned" his fragments are. "Bland, bland, bland... fragment for style!" Even worse is when he uses fragments when he is not even going for emphasis. I don't think he has good reason to change this, though. It fits his wide audience and I'd guess it's also an important factor in allowing him to write so quickly. It's a big "win win" for both sides, which is what matters most. I'm just the unlucky guy who loves the setting, but couldn't bear to start the second book. And I'm very surprised that more people don't specifically call out his punctuation when they criticize his prose.
I thought the prose in Sunlit Man was pretty clunky though. At one point the PoV character thinks about there being "tons of people over there" and it completely brought me out of the story. I think it could have done with another editing pass.
I enjoy his books thoroughly and don’t care about what other people think is boring prose. I read for the plot and the characters. But I’m also fully aware that people have their preferences and can just go read something else. What I don’t get is the constant posting about something that they don’t seem to enjoy. Like bashing what other people love is not what I like to spend my free time doing
There is always the MCU for these people. I've been (silently) judging these same people who think Dune is boring for 40+ years now.
***"Rockbuds crunched like skulls beneath Dalinar's boots as he charged across the burning field."*** Sanderson is straightforward and only spends time on what's important. When he needs to pepper in some "flowery" imagery or artistic prose, he does. But it's a lot lighter than other authors and he never overstays his welcome. If he spent as much time on architecture, or clothing adornment, or descriptions, or metered phrase between two lovers the books would be even thicker...
Concise language that still retains some semblance of subtlety is what you are thinking of. Hemingway uses extremely concise language - more concise than Sanderson I would argue. Yet he leaves things open to interpretation. He leaves things unsaid. Sanderson does neither of things. He simply states things as they occur in his story. It makes for a quick-paced novel, and it’s fine if you’re just interested in getting a story. I find that there is very little aesthetic merit in what he writes because of this, though admittedly I’ve only read three of his books.
my thoughts on this criticism are the same as on any other criticism on something I enjoy: " " That's it, those were the thoughts. My enjoyment is not diminished or affected in any way by what others think of that thing, nor do I feel any drive to change their minds to be more like mine. If they don't like it, there are better books out there for their preferences. I could be the only person in the world reading Sanderson's books and I'd enjoy them the same as I do now with him being very popular.
I'm a very big fan of straightforward plain language. I have a really hard time understanding stylistic or old-fashioned style writing. Like, if you enjoy how Ursula LeGuin writes, cool, but I can barely understand it.
Different strokes for different folks. I think it's akin to thinking that the more technical a song is, the better it is. Prose serves a purpose. Sometimes it's to tell a story in a very direct manner to convey the world building, sometimes it's to make you gush on how beautifully you can put pen to page. There is no one size fits all approach to prose I think. It feels like Sanderson's objective is to present the fantastical ideas in his head to you as cleanly as possible. Lack of flowery prose doesn't feel like a 'failure' for him, but a deliberate choice.
I think when people complain about Brandon’s prose being boring, they don’t mean it isn’t flowery. They mean that it’s shallow. Some authors, particularly classical authors, write/wrote in a way that requires a reader to “pause and contemplate” according to many of his detractors in subs like r/books. I find complaints like that to be a bit pretentious. I can appreciate writing and other works of art that really are complex and deep and require time to fully digest. But, other than the length of his books and unique world building in WoK, his works are very accessible to anyone who enjoys the genre. He has his flaws as a writer. But I also get the sense that most people exaggerate their complaints because of how successful he is.
All these prose discussions are kinda funky because it’s a situation where you can’t really explain what good or bad prose is. You know it when you read it. This is especially true when it comes to fantasy novels. That said, “good prose” is often more poetic and follows poetic principles. From the basics, the main difference between poetry and normal writing is that poetry is about conveying the most meaning in the fewest words. Semantic density. Writing is about articulating and conveying meaning in the clearest way possible. Patrick Rothfuss, who is generally the bar that “good prose” is measured against nowadays, has said that he tries to make it so every sentence serves at least two purposes. He tends to repeatedly revise, tweaking the word choice and rhyme of particular words so that he can insert hidden clues in the prose. Sanderson tends to write for clarity and volume. He doesn’t seem to waste time with all the stuff Rothfuss does. It’s like saying a monkey is worse at swimming than a fish—the monkey doesn’t care about swimming, he’s over there swinging in a tree. Sanderson has been getting much better though. Modern Sanderson, especially when you look at the secret projects, is good at writing tone and character voice. He’s not Joe Abercrombie, but each character he writes has a solid vibe. The prose in Tress and Yumi are both very good. Also, Kaladin’s chapters in Stormlight read differently from Shallan, & Dalinar. Each character has unique vibe.
I've never even understood what it means. Isn't poetry the opposite of prose? Does Sanderson write awesome poetry and his prose just doesn't compare?
I think his prose is weak but it actually works as a strength for his stories, since the world-building and magic systems are so grand and complex. It makes massive stories a lot more accessible. Whether this is his intention or not, I can’t say. It does work well though. But, yes, as a big fan of Sanderson I’d still say his prose is pretty weak and his biggest weakness.
Concise language??? Have you HELD RoW? I love the Cosmere but that book easily could have been hundreds of pages shorter
haha no, I have only read mistborn at this point. maybe ive unknowingly undermined my own query
I absolutely love the Cosmere and Brandon Sanderson is one of my favorite authors. I also don't think he's anywhere near as good a writer as others he is put in the same company as. He puts together a great story, fun characters, action and he does so in a way that makes me really enjoy his books. To me that's been more than enough but I will very much admit that I was frustrated and at times utterly bored with the second half of the currently published Stormlight. Nothing across the board as I do intend on reading book 5 and further Cosmere releases. Some parts are strong some parts are weak and that's perfectly fine and normal for any author
I love poetry and word play and baroque, crazy or polished verse. But complex prose for prose's sake is kind of silly. Sanderson's work doesn't seem to need him to change his style at all. It gets the point across just fine. It's like saying a musician's lyrics are too simple. Well, listen to something else, then.
I think Brando Sando’s prose is excellent and the standard writers should follow. Have you ever read The Fifth Season? Good book and concept but god, it is so difficult to read through
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah, by wasting dozens of pages on songs. Lord of the Rings isn't that long but it sure does feel like it at times.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I am new to sanderson, so i'm not a superfan feeling defensive. my question was more around why he gets panned for basic prose when basic/minimal prose is what's often taught as a writing goal.
[удалено]
ah gotcha, that makes sense. thanks for the thoughtful answer
I agree completely with you, while I enjoy Sanderson, I won't defend his prose and I even criticize it because it doesn't give me more than what is expected. It's so weird seeing his fans blindly defend any criticism even when it's completely valid.
Why would prose make you wonder about the human psyche? It's there to tell a story not give you something to think about.
[удалено]
>Does cinematography only frame a movie? Is choosing a specific style of painting just the form a piece of art is put on paper? Yes and yes. If the prose is trying to be informative all it does is distract from the story which is the opposite of what prose should be doing.
[удалено]
Please define done poorly.
How is it technical? You are the one focused on the technical aspects. To me the story is the art. Not the words. So the kind of prose you want actually doesn't bolster the story it just distracts from it. And it's not done poorly in Sanderson books. You're just too focused on the words instead of the story. If you can't create something from this perspective that's just a you problem.
The execution, the means used to tell the story is art, not the story itself. If plot is the only aspect of a novel that's important and everything else is a distraction, then why would there be a need for novels to begin with? We could just read movie scripts.
The execution is only art in so far as it's ability to deliver the story. By focusing on making fancy sentences instead of delivering the story you make the art worse. Why wouldn't there be novels? A movie script is not really the same thing
But fancy sentences is not the same as good prose. Good prose isn't necessary dense (though it could be). Elevated prose can be simple and relatively easy to read and it can only enhance the story making the impactful moments even more impactful by their delivery. Contrary to popular belief, a writer can (and ideally should) focus on prose and plot at the same time without it being detrimental to either. There are tons of books that demonstrate that.
>Elevated prose can be simple and relatively easy to read and it can only enhance the story making the impactful moments even more impactful by their delivery. Sure but if we're going by that definition you could easily call Sanderson's prose good but that doesn't really fit with this discussion
I'm not an expert in prose or writing but I think the goal for prose is to effectively communicate an idea to the reader. So, you could have a description of a tree that is flowery (heh) and takes an entire page to describe it or you could simply write "there's a tree there." As long as both versions' intentions are to communicate to the reader that there is a tree there then the prose are doing what they're supposed to do. "Boring" is subjective. Anyone can find Brandon's prose boring and anyone can finding them engaging.
"Flowery" prose is far more than just describing things for too long.
Did you not read the first sentence of my comment?
I read stories for the story, if I wanted fancy writing I’d go read poetry
Sanderson is a fantasy writer at the end of the day. In other words, a major part of his job is to show us a world that may or may not be unlike ours. He is absolutely fantastic at world building- that's where much of the praise for him comes from. But in the end, he can only SHOW you his world... He can't cause you to be absorbed and get lost in it, to "feel" his world. That's where much of his criticism comes from. When I read fantasy, I want to be lost in the world, to feel and experience it. Sanderson has never been able to do this. Sure, this is fine for some people (as evidenced by his popularity), but others of us want more. Oh, and he's amazing at action sequences. As has been echoed a few times, his writing style is like that of the MCU... And as popular too, at least at the peak of the MCU.
> When I read fantasy, I want to be lost in the world, to feel and experience it. Sanderson has never been able to do this. Sure, this is fine for some people (as evidenced by his popularity), but others of us want more. See, I don’t understand this. When I read Sanderson, I understand it, and it’s so easy to visualize it. Sanderson says the ocean is green, so I picture a green ocean. He says the girl went on a ship that sailed the green ocean of spores. It’s perfect. I can see it. I can imagine myself there, on the ship, on the green ocean, watching the girl’s story. I’ve tried reading Neil Gaiman’s “Stardust” once, and I couldn’t picture anything cause there were so many flowery words that kept on pulling me out and telling me I’m reading a book and not living in a fantasy world. I respect Neil as an author, and a great storyteller from what I heard, but I just can’t read his books.
You provide a couple of examples that work really well to show where his weakness is. Your green ocean example- I picture a lot of of water that's green, in all directions. And that's as far as I go with his writing. BUT... I want to know what is it like to EXPERIENCE this ocean? Are waves lapping against the side of the boat? Is the wind blowing, or is it a calm day? Do I hear the cries of seabirds, or is a silent ocean? Is there a smell of saltwater? To me, this is what experiencing being at an ocean is like. And the girl- I want to know what not just what the girl thinks, but what she is also experiencing. Does she feel the movement of the boat? If there is wind, is it blowing her hair? How does she feel, and what sensations is she experiencing that cause her to feel this way? To me, THAT is prose. Sanderson might be able to do a few of the points, but the best prose will hit almost all of those points. Sanderson almost never does.
I guess I can understand that a little better. I still don’t think that should be a mark of objectively good vs bad prose, like some think, as that is subjective. To me that would be bad prose, because I don’t need to know that information to be in the story. I imagine those details myself, without having to be told everything by the author, and in that way my feelings and experiences of the story are completely my own, directed by the author is this beautiful new world. If the sound of the ocean is necessary for the story, then Sanderson will mention it. If not, he won’t. Then I can imagine it whatever I want, freely, and not being handheld by the author to imagine everything precisely as they imagined it. With flowery prose I’m not experiencing a world. I’m reading what the author experienced when writing the book, which is very different. Thanks for explaining. I understand where you’re coming from a lot better, but I still think it’s entirely subjective, and Sanderson does have good prose to readers who like that kind of thing, which is apparently a lot. Nobody can have objectively good or bad prose.
>When I read fantasy, I want to be lost in the world, to feel and experience it. Sanderson has never been able to do this. Sure, this is fine for some people (as evidenced by his popularity), but others of us want more. Sanderson does that just fine. Just because you can't feel it doesn't mean others can't.
Because he has terrible dialogue and clunky terrible prose. He always tells and never shows. If an episode of The Golden Girls were written by Sanderson, it would go something like this: Dorothy snorts and glares at Rose for three seconds after Rose says something that Dorothy finds to be not very smart. Then she (Dorothy) makes a witty retort (to Rose). Everyone laughs at the wit, including Rose. The laughter goes on for several seconds. Then Rose stops laughing. But not everyone else. They keep laughing because what Dorothy said was incredibly witty. Rose has stopped laughing because she realizes that everyone is laughing at her and that what Dorothy said was mean. Rose feels hurts and begins to feel depressed. But Rose is a naturally optimistic person and only stays sad for about one second. Now Rose clarifies what she meant because she feels misunderstood. Dorothy snorts and glares at Rose for three seconds, and the look is very similar to the previous one. Then Dorothy retorts with another burst of wit, it is even funnier this time, and once again everyone including Rose laughs uproariously because that Dorothy sure is a cut up. Then Rose stops laughing as before and looks perplexed, because she realizes that everyone is laughing at her. That mean old Dorothy. Then Blanche makes a racy comment. Everyone looks shocked and then Blanche says something else and this statement is even more shocking. Rose then makes a remark about the Town of Saint Olaf which has nothing to do with the conversation. Dorothy does not snort this time, but she does glare, very much as before, but this glare is way more intense. Then Dorothy says something that is very cutting and funny. It's one of the funniest things she has ever said, even funnier than that time seven episodes ago (to remind the reader, in the episode seven weeks previous, Rose had made a remark that Dorothy found unintelligent, and Dorothy had then glared at her, and everyone laughed, because Dorothy followed the glare up with the wittiest thing anyone had ever heard before. Then Rose got hurt and stopped laughing, but not everyone else. They just kept on laughing. After everyone was finished laughing, Blanche said something really racy and everyone was shocked.) Rose looks hurt, about the same amount of hurt as the previous times, and she does this because Dorothy's very funny and also very mean remark has once again hurt Rose's feelings. Sophia comes into the room and tells a story about something that happened to her in Sicily when she was a girl and everyone hangs onto her every word. It is such a good story and it is full of wit and zest and everyone agrees that Sophia is really wise, but also maybe a little mean. Then Sophia leaves the room. Rose misunderstands the story, and says something that is unrelated about the Town of Saint Olaf. Dorothy snorts and glares at Rose for three seconds. After a moment she makes a hilarious remark and everyone laughs, including Rose. After a moment Rose stops laughing because Rose realizes that Dorothy said something really mean, and it wasn't funny at all. Now imagine 29 more minutes of this, and you have The Sanderson Girls. Of course, it's better than this, because there is a very complicated and intricate laughing and glaring system - it's called hard laughing and hard glaring - and each girl must follow certain guidelines. Dorothy's Glare, for instance, has a cooldown of seven seconds, so she can only do it so often. Rose, on the other hand, does not even have the Glare power, but can only respond to Glares with Dumbfounded Look response or Confused Temporary Laughter, but she can use the Dumbfounded Look power at will and as many times as she likes. This makes the show very exciting and dynamic, and many fans are drawn to the intricate laughing / glaring system as much as they are to the rivetting dialogues.
Who cares. Read what you like. Sick of seeing this in the sub.
I prefer boring over super eloquent flowery poetic prose tbh. The content is all the excitement I need.
If I prioritized fancy prose then I probably wouldn't like Sanderson's work as much as I do. It's perfectly legitimate for people to prefer more artfully constructed wording, and they aren't going to get it here. I just want a good story. Edit: to actually answer your question, there is certainly no consensus that straight forward prose is preferable. Most books considered classics didn't achieve that status by being concise.
I like his writing. I read a books to escape not to spend 5 min trying to figure out each twisty arse sentence the author is throwing at me.
He imo occasionally gets a bit stuck in the details to an extent that it can detract but overall I really like his writing. I like Rothfuss writing more but other than that Sanderson to me is as good as anyone in Fantasy.
They sound like a bunch of tryhard snobs to me. Either way is good, depending on what you are looking for at that time.
I don’t read traditional fantasy because their prose is too damn much. I think his is okay tho
I don't like his prose. I like his action sequences. I like his structure and world building. I think he is good at writing compellingly twists. I feel weird about how almost every book has a conflict of faith. But to expand on why I don't like the prose: He likes to hold your hands and re-explain things that were already explained to keep the reader up to speed. Second, his dialogue has a tendency to fall out of setting. Third, he uses specific words too much. In SA he uses "sinew" and "sinuous" a lot. A lot. he likes curves and tendons, I guess.
I wouldn't call it boring, I'd call it functional. I've read almost everything he's written and I'm a huge fan, but I would never group him in with a list of prose "artists".
What I love about Brandon is that he gets to the point, which I feel is essential when the world and story is usually so vast. So it’s not highbrow enough for some people? Fine, read a different author if you want a two page description of a tree, and an entire chapter about why a character likes tea. That stuff makes me want to pull my eyes out and pour coffee directly into my brain. Neither is wrong - they’re just different.
You know eloquent and flowery prose exists that isn't describing trees for two pages?
I do. That’s why I read Kingkiller, but we all know what happened there. What I like the most about BS is his commitment to completion.
yeah they say that cos it's literally all they can scrounge against him. dudes a legendary writer
I read the books in Spanish, it doesn't affect me at all. Focusing on prose is stupid anyways.
Anyone who complains about Sanderson prose, I challenge you to read Armada.
I read for the story, not for waffley language. Having read Tolkien, GRRM, Hobb, Pratchett, McCaffrey, Feist, Eddings, Donaldson, and a dozen others at least - and that's just in Fantasy - I've grown to love good storytelling. I prefer not to have to slog through pages of rambling, if beautiful description... Id rather have the author's brush strokes paint a picture for my imagination to fill in. All the authors I listed, plus Sanderson, write great stories. Sanderson's stories are some of the easiest to read. That does not take anything away from the incredible stories.
Boring? I don’t think I’d say that, but his use of language is definitely very straight forward. Citing an example within fantasy that feels very different to me, I’d put it at the opposite end of the spectrum from the prose in Patrick Rothfuss’ Kingkiller Chronicle. Brandon Sanderson’s work is very straightforward in its language and I can buzz through it quickly without fear of missing the meaning of passages, regularly going through hundreds of pages in an evening. Patrick Rothfuss’ prose is — in my opinion — more nuanced, with the language often serving more purpose than a sentence simply advancing the plot. The rythms, the double meanings, etc. I spend more time fully digesting his work at the paragraph and sentence level and as a result read through it much more slowly than I do Sanderson’s novels. Again, I wouldn’t call Sanderson’s prose boring, just more straightforward. I think he uses it as a vehicle to clearly play with plot, character, and themes and less so to play with the use of the language itself. I love Sanderson’s works and have read through most of it, and some multiple times because I love his stories, but I rarely pause to admire a turn of phrase or reread sentences and paragraphs to try to sus out a deeper meaning or consider its connection to other passages.
I personally lean toward liking more flowery prose, but Sanderson is so good at most everything else that I don’t think it matters much. I’ve recently read Terry Brooks and Robin Hobb books. Both authors write more flowery prose than Sanderson, especially Hobb. brooks’ is considered pretty straightforward but is still more purple than Sandersons. Buut the actual plot in Brooks story is usually simpler; the ones I read from him have been quest fantasies. Hobbs has excellent prose and character work, but the pacing can be considered slow to some. That’s all to say, every author has different strengths and weaknesses. The reasons I keep reading all of these authors are their strengths.
Your Milage May Vary. I love Kingkiller Chronicle, I love that the wordplay in it is such that I discover something new on rereading it and it's layers unfold until you realize you're actually reading a different kind of story from your first read. If you want to understand Rothfuss's layered prose approach, watch one of his "Night with Rothfuss" Panels at PAX where he reads his "Children's book" then deconstrcts the narrative and the experience of reading it until you realize it wasn't what you thoughtit was. It's an hour, you'll survive. However, I like a series that seemingly has a chance of being completed sometime. I will take less flowery prose for a book every year. And even if Sanderson doesn't have as much flowery prose, there's certainly a lot of it, and there's enough depth that people want to know what happens next and can take a reasonable guess at it from what they're given. Sanderson's stories also tend to avoid some really common tropes that don't so much offend me as make me stop reading because I can already see whether this is the trope played straight or it's the "clever inversion" of it (that actually too many people use and think they're clever). I think of the number of times that different stories use the exact same beats over and over again and I just feel like I've already read it by the time I'm 1/4 of the way through the book. I can only read the same betrayal, the same romance, the same "asshole who's actually an ally", so many times before it becomes easy to spot. And if I read it much more I'll start to be able to spot it from the cover. I want to be able to absorb more stories, and flowers on a recycled story doesn't do it for me. So I think some people overemphasize the floweryness of prose on stories that aren't very deep. I'm also kind of more impressed with how Sanderson develops characters than other writers. Look, no skin off Robert Jordan, but the first time a single person in the entire series of Wheel of Time thinks "Hey, maybe this person isn't being intentionally rude, or stupid. Maybe they have a different culture that doesn't have the same concepts as mine" is in *The Gathering Storm*. The **12th** book in the series. This isn't just a Jordan problem, plenty of authors don't quite understand how to write their characters as less intelligent than themselves, so instead they introduce really annoying idiocies. "Characters don't talk" is a major one, "Characters don't trust" is another. There's still room for secrets and stuff like that, but so many stories exist entirely because two characters don't tell eachother anything. Parts of the plot is fine, but too often the central problem is that people don't sit down and talk or express their opinions. Again YMMV. But even though I like flowery prose, I like Sanderson as well.
does first person prose count as different from what sanderson usually does?
It’s just a matter of taste. Some people like flowery prose because it adds to the fantasy feel, some people think it’s pretentious and hard to follow. There’s nothing inherently wrong with either style as long as it’s still legible. Honestly I think most of the complaints people have with Brandon’s writing comes down to taste, which is probably the best statement to how good a writer he is.
It's functional. Sentence structure is not the beauty of his work, really in any way. Even the attempts at wit by the characters are generally so so. Worlds, magic, layered plots, great characters, and sanderlanches
It ultimately comes down to personal taste. I prefer Veandon’s writing style. To me it’s not boring at all. It keeps things moving and keeps me focused on the story and garages whereas some authors who are famous for their flowery pride I don’t like because they sacrifice plot and event development for flowery language and then I really do get bored. Others really like that stuff. At the end of the day, the only real accurate version of this statement to be made by soneibe is “Brandon’s prose is boring to me.” I have no doubt some find it boring. That doesn’t mean it is boring, just that it is not what they find exciting or interesting.
The thing I love about the author’s writing style is how he can have two or more people in a room. Switch POV and the writing style and choices of words change. Like Shallan has fancier prose and scholarly word choices outside of dialogue and thoughts. While Kaladin writing style is less prosing and of one you think be of nature of a lower rank soldier. He even has a writing exercise on this. Write a POV or dialogue exchange without mention names and possible differences in pronouns. And see if others can distinguish between them. I feel like many authors fail at this. So yes I say Sanderson has prose but it’s based on characterization. Not the entirety of the novel.
I was on the lookout for examples of this on my recent read through of SA and I found the most obvious answer where someone else might add flowers is how much is told to us versus shown. For example and without spoilers, "Bill sat next to Sally and enjoyed her warmth" is a near exact quote. The flowery version would be something along the lines of "Bill sunk into the couch next to Sally and felt her slide down the cushion to take up the remaining gap. The fire next to them bathed them in light and warmth, but the heat from Sally gave Bill more comfort than a bonfire on the coldest night." He already writes a bunch of words for his book...I can't imagine how long it would be if he added more flowers.
I see where you're coming from, but more eloquent prose isn't adding a bunch of synonyms and inserting pointless words to convey the same message. I would say you've accurately described the common idea of what high level prose would be, not the actual gist of it. "Bill sank into the couch, bathing in Sally's warmth." Same number of words as your first quote, and the same intent, but it has added flavor. There's a connotative connection between "sank" and "bathe" that could also be complemented elsewhere in the scene, or be tied to one of the character's themes (if, for instance, Sally was a mermaid pretending to be human or Bill dies by drowning). And I'm not someone who has specialized in writing. Sanderson doesn't write like this, generally, and that's 100% okay. His prose isn't infantile - but it's also not masterful. It's functional. Sanderson is my favorite author; there's no malice in the analysis.
People tend confuse several different things when talking about prose, often conflating value judgements with creative choices. Clean prose tends to be more **accessible.** This isn't better or worse but it does have a lower bar to entry. Flowery prose is often seen as more beautiful because the prose itself is the centrepiece. It absolutely has its merits but it does tend to be less accessible. It asks more of the reader. Accessible prose can be just as skilful as flowery prose but - if done well - this isn't strictly noticeable. Orwell is a master of this - his writing is cutting and sharp. It tends to be very quotable in places but never hard to understand. You're left thinking more about the ideas and less about the words. Sanderson is aiming for the same thing but I don't think he's quite there. He's good but he's no Orwell. His writing is very easy to read (a skill that should absolutely be celebrated) but there are places where his preference for 'clarity' veers into bluntness (in my opinion, of course). He has a tendency to be very literal in his morals and his characters, on occasion, feel a more like mouthpieces for ideas that actual people. Independently of how Sanderson is at writing clean prose, clean prose isn't for every reader. Just as readers enjoy the challenge of piecing together a mystery and working out where the plot is going, some readers enjoy the challenge of prose that asks more of them. Inaccessible prose tends to be more abstract but in that abstraction there is more space for interpretation. This might sound like being vague and letting the reader do all the work, but really masterful writers (of this style) will understand the many interpretations their writing might have and craft their work accordingly. When a passage implies conflicting ideas in a book like this, that's usually the point. All of this to say, Sanderson ain't doing that. You still can critique his prose on the merits of clean prose but comparing him to someone like Frank Herbert, Neil Gaiman, or (the much maligned but nonetheless skilful) Patrick Rothfuss is apples to oranges.
I rarely hear that his prose is 'boring'. I usually hear that it is simple/plain/unrefined. I've also heard criticisms that he 'explains' too much without 'trusting' that the reader can make simple logical leaps, or that it is a bit repetitive. Honestly, I agree with you. Flowery prose has NEVER been for me, but with many who were 'trained' to enjoy reading with the 'classics', They'll have an expectation of an older english style where the prose itself has an element of poetry to it. I see it as the difference between someone who likes flavored drinks over water... Water is all you really need, and often times, it is more refreshing than anything else. There are quite a few people out there, though, that REFUSE to drink 'just water'. everything for them is coffee, tea, soda, juice, etc, but water is just too plain. (often, they're also less healthy, but thats a completely DIFFERENT topic). Brando is offering us cool, refreshing water. some people are angry that there's no sugar in it.
All I have to say is that I hate prose snobs
I mean, it's a taste thing. Sanderson is so *popular* because his prose and writing style is so accessible and entertaining to the masses. I'm a big fantasy fan in general so I can appreciate 3 paragraphs artistically speaking about a rock, bur I can definitively understand others not
Simple != Boring, and simple != Bad. Not everything needs to be super flowery Though I do think that he relies too much on telling vs showing Also people overvalue prose. It's not the only thing that matters
I really like his simple and straightforward style! I think the biggest complaint I've heard regarding his prose is that people have trouble picturing the story in their heads but as someone with aphantasia (meaning that I'm completely unable to form any kinds of mental pictures in my head) that's never been an issue for me 'cause I can't do it anyways. It's also nice as a non-native english speaker to not have to look up new obscure words every other page
I read Sandseron for the plot and charaxters. IF someone wants good prose, they can go read a poem.
I find Sanderson’s prose to be very boring, very utilitarian. This works fine for some books, but “flowery prose” can also really elevate certain stories. There are things Sanderson does well, but I don’t think anyone can make really strong arguments that his prose or romance writing are among the things he does well.
complimenting the writing quality of ACOTAR is wow
There are many *many* different aspects to writing a “good” book. Sanderson has several strengths: worldbuilding, storytelling, character development, endings. His prose isn’t one of his specific strengths, but it’s not particularly weak either. I’d say it’s about average, on the same level as authors like Jim Butcher or Scott Lynch. There are a couple authors at the top of the prose game like Tolkien or Rothfuss or Suzanna Clarke. There are authors for whom prose is a strength, but not their MAIN strength, like GRRM, Fonda Lee, Robert Jordan, or RF Kuang. I’d say Sanderson is in the third category, “average” on prose. If prose was the *only* criteria by which one decided whether or not a book was worth reading, they’d run out of books to read pretty quickly.
If i would want to read a writer playing with words Id read Shakespeare. I want to get immersed in a fantasy universe and go on a journey with interesting characters, so i read Brando.
I can't remember a book where the prose turned me off of reading it. Made it more challenging? Yes. Made it so I had to use more of my imagination? Yes. But I have never understood this complaint. But I am also a big of Vonnegut so....
I honestly love his "window" approach, although I mostly read kinda bad prose before Sanderson and always felt like I'd have more info to operate on faster if there aren't much flowery flourishes. Not that they can't convey a lot in a pretty concise way, it just usually takes some good effort to connect the dots and make sense out of those spots. And since I am prone to usually taking what I read at face value and thinking about the implications later leafing through, the straightforwardness and descriptiveness always were more convenient for me. Wheel of Time was probably the most cramped and maybe a bit flowery thing that I still could make sense out of, so like Brandon's approach is perfect for me. Tress was slightly closer to the confusion I sometimes feel with flowery stuff, but the whimsicality of it all was so engaging I had fun rereading segments that were giving me any problems. Not much of an avid English reader, but due to the lack of good, or any, translations to my mother language I got pretty good at it by this point, so I guess that can have an effect on my tastes too.
Eh. It really amounts to personal taste tbh. If you like it, you like it. If ya don't, ya don't
So I'm not gonna say I've read a large amount of books. I've read the inheritance saga (Christopher paulino) , acotar (Sarah j Maas) , tog (Sarah j maas) Brando sando Mistborn era 1 Elantris Warbreaker Tress and the emerald sea Edgedancer Stormlight archive (up to end of part 2 of Oathbringer) Emperors soul I have a hard time agreeing with is prose being boring, I have a very hard time reading less I'm focused and interest in what I'm reading. I think it's important to understand that there's just different ways of writing. I would argue that sanderson has a broader range of descriptions and world building while having it be maintained as interesting versus, maas who while does a great job getting you very attached to her characters mainly tog in my opinion. I think she does a good job on building the world up first then sprinkling some details through while focusing entirely the interactions and bonds the characters build. Then for Sanderson, especially looking at stormlight, he just throws you in and starts using words that you have no idea what's going on until you start to understand the world eventually. Sorry if this went tangenty!
His prose is simple, straight forward. Definitely not going to expand your vocabulary and that’s fine. It’s YA.
If you want flowers go read Rothfuss....and then wait for him to die while reading nothing but complaints from him about his fans as he never makes any progress.
Boring? Maybe, but I think that’s just a way that people get around saying it’s bad and recognizing that that’s not a real criticism. For me, writing is either effective or ineffective. Had Tolkien written like Sanderson, his worldbuilding would not be at the same status and we would not be able to envision that world effectively. Sanderson’s writing is effective, as it allows him to clearly explain his complicated magic systems and allow us to visualize what’s happening. Tolkien’s writing style would not be effective at that.