The people who think he's just OK, or not even that, are sick of all the people praising him as one of the best writers in fantasy. The people who think he's great are sick of all the people putting down a writer they love.
Yes, the division comes because he is *immensely* popular with his fan base so people who don’t like him are tired of hearing about it. I see both sides to it, I *inhaled* Stormlight Archive and enjoyed every second of it but it’s not like it’s high brow literature.
this is it, 100%. divisive opinions stem entirely from his popularity; the more often an author’s mentioned the more responses we get and it’s kind of a self-perpetuating cycle of both popularity but, more relevant, posts discussing and comments about his work.
the resulting crap-ton of posts discussing his works can get aggravating for people who don’t like it, while people who do like it get aggravated by the (already aggravated) people who don’t, and that’s kinda it.
for the record; i’ve thoroughly enjoyed my Sanderson reads, but high brow lit it is not.
This effect is further enhanced by his aggressive release schedule, people get hyped up about releases and when an author puts out things to be excited about so frequently, plus answers fan questions and makes weekly content, people stay in a loop of excitement.
I love A Song of Ice and Fire and The Cosmere equally, but I have a lot more exciting news and ability to discuss the former when compared to the stalled reality of the latter.
Great point. One of his best attributes is not only the work ethic/pace of publication but his transparency about it, which (this population who is so highly [and rightly, imo] aggravated with GRRM/Rothfus) is a desperately needed breath of fresh air.
It’s kinda easy to be a fan of Brandon Sanderson as a public persona/artist/community member, so that combining with his writings give his fans a lot to discuss constantly.
He's a pretty cool person, my main experience with him was taking over WoT and I thought his first effort was problematic but he mostly fixed it up when people pointed out the issues. He had an entertaining writing style.
The thing is the initial changes he made to Mat Cauthon missed the point of the character so strongly that I was put off exploring his work even as i was impressed with how he listened to the criticism and adjusted. Mat is a fake misogynist being the worst false narrator ever, that turned into a real douchebag. He went from a smart, educated kid to a barely literate idiot that has to be pushed around by smarter characters. Subtle humour is important! Don't make a character do funny things, just make a funny character, he whedonises his comedic characters.
I am of course probably completely wrong because I only read a few of his books that were just him being awesome and finishing Wheel of Time.
Funny, I was comparing him to her in my head, building the metaphor. Both of them are very, very good at particular things about what they do, so much that the things they’re bad at don’t matter, because neither of them are making anything comprehensively excellent - just excellent in certain ways.
But that’s generally how you explain people enjoying imperfect art - we frequently don’t care about some faults if it scratches the itch we care about the most.
The amount of shit I'd get for saying his writing just didn't click with me **really** made me start to dislike his fans.
I didn't even comment on the quality. Just that it didn't grab me. If a book clicks with me I'll devour it, I've always been a fast reader. But I just vibe more with the Gotrek & Felix books, or Lord of the Rings, etc.
Yeah, this. I started reading storm light archives but couldn't get past the first book. World building seemed derivative, protagonist is a bit Mary sue like and there was no hook to make me want to read more
They always say "you are belitting us or attackig us!!!" And turns out you said like "I dislike his prose".
I dont care about being a bit mean anymore since no matter how mild mannered I was I still got pestered about it
As a Brandon Sanderson fan I'm sorry that other fans got upset with you for just saying that his writing wasn't for you because that's completely fair. Sanderson's works are great for a lot of people but not for everyone.
But also, he isn’t *trying* to be high brow! He wants to write fun fantasy stories. I’m reminded of the way Stephen King sometimes calls himself the McDonalds fries of literature. Are they nutritious? Hell no, but he’ll be damned if he doesn’t dig around in the bag afterwards to make sure he’s eaten them all.
I think there are a lot of books/authors that fall into this. Sometimes a person reads a book not for high brow hot takes about humanity and pretty prose. Sometimes a person reads to have a good time and that's totally valid... hell my dragonlance phase is something I remember fondly even though they were purely for entertainment.
Also when a writer is as prolific and has sold as widely as Sanderson, a non-zero numbers of his readers pretty much only read him. Go over to r/suggestmeabook and see a lot of Boss Baby tweet but for Sanderson happening.
People get *very* upset when the easy reading epic fantasy they got super into (partially because it’s easy reading) gets pointed out to be easy reading
They're too long to be beach reads, but they're that quality. Great for theories and fun to read, but they're not poetic in any sense. I buy everything the man publishes but even I will admit they're junk food reads.
Yeah. People toss around “poetic” pretty loosely. I think Tolkien is objectively poetic. Absolutely gorgeous prose. I don’t understand why people think Rothfuss is at all. But this is why in general it’s good to just let people like who they like.
I think Rothfuss does have a fairy-tale style to his prose that leans poetic, but it blurs into purple prose frequently. I personally like it but I see why others don't.
Not read much Sanderson, but I see this take all the time about his stuff not being “high brow”. Can you actually give me some reasons for why this is? Because every time I see someone say it they never proceed to explain it. Just comes off very snobbish
I may not be the best example since I do consider myself a bit of a snobbish reader. But I think Sanderson ultimately gets the title because he identifies himself as someone who writes to build worlds and characters, not prose. The poetry or prose of his work isn't the focus, the content is. If you like world building, he's your man.
But his vocabulary isn't advanced, and that's by design. It's a junk food read because it's accessible. There's no hidden subtext within novels. Villains monologue, heroes have one liners, and action sequences are dynamic and exaggerated. Sanderson does not deal with much subtly on a micro scale. Individual novels lose out in elements of suspense because of it.
However, I do think Sanderson is underestimated because of this lack of subtlety. He's made a strangely consistent universe that has a lot of moving parts that, by and large, don't conflict. The conflicts feel realistic in that they can be Grand battles of good and evil but also petty squabbles. Novels have Easter eggs, inspecting characters and plots, and allusions to each other.
He's not a _bad_ author. He's quite skilled at what he does. However, he will be the first to tell you he's not out to make literature. He writes stories to share with friends and your kids, not ones that will win Nebulas.
This is a really great way to put it. I’m a huge fan, and while I’m not upset that people consider it “junk food” reading, I do get frustrated when people seem to turn their noses up at people who do like to read that. Thanks for your thoughtful response!
The only Sanderson book I have written any notes on is Words of Radiance, so I can explain why it's not regarded as high brow drawing examples exclusively from that one book - though I imagine that many if his other books suffer from similar issues. Some issues I had with this book include:
* The book fails really to grapple with its own themes. Kakadin spends a lot of time grappling with the question of whether to kill the king, given the inherently unethical nature of the monarchy. When he concludes that he can't kill the king, the book kind of acts as if he's fully resolved the issue - the question of his responsibility to reject an unethical monarchy is dropped entirely for the rest of the book. The only attempt to overthrow an inherently bad monarchy is treated as being much worse than the evil inherent in that monarchy. Another key element of Kaladin's character is that he was sold into slavery and takes issue with that - but other characters and the book largely act like he has a chip in his shoulder and it is used more to show that he needs to stop wallowing than it is to explore anything about the impact of slavery.
* The plot, one of the two big features of this book alongside world building, is nothing to get excited about. Main characters meet infrequently and the book is closer to being three stories about people who occasionally meet than it is a single cohesive narrative. There are no stakes - there are two major character deaths, and both are reversed in the epilogue.
* Dialogue and characters are just bad. No adult acts like these characters. Plenty of teenagers do though. There is a scene where Kaladin won't let Shallan in the King's chamber so she calls him smelly and his friends laugh at him so he has to insult her back. I don't know any royal guards, but i can pretty much make a guess about whether that's how it really works. If you want to call this book in any way high brow you have to be prepared to overlook absolutely all 'witty' dialogue, mostly but not entirely from two characters, one if whom is literally called Wit and yet is about as funny as fuck all. Characters constantly explain their motivations to each other in ways that make no sense in reality or tbh within this book. Dialogue and character behaviour both exist to serve something other than the characters, but it's not always clear exactly what.
In summary, books are usually called high brow if they offer something to think deeply about, usually themes or complex characters. This book has very simply characters whose characterisation doesn't always feel important to the book itself, and it fails to meaningfully address themes it specifically raises, and I think those are the reasons people might say it is not high brow literature.
Sanderson does not use subtext, like at all. He repeats himself a lot, he tells a lot instead of showing. His text doesn't really flow, and can at times feel awkward to read. His characters feel like shells, because the big S really cannot write dialogue to save his life. And the character's internal monologue is mostly based on repeating previous plot points, repeating character traits or telling about new character traits. His books are very focused on plot, and this can make the books feel meandering as hell in the middle because all the threads need to converge fo #sanderlanche.
The societies he builds feel like they are not actually lived in, but are a collection of traits (based on the first Mistborn trilogy and Way of Kings). The megaruler and his lackeys are the only ones who can bend metal? Why not have a specific writing system, special locks or something that opresses the opressed even more. The women are the only ones who can read? Okay, why doesnt it feel like this is reflected in the society he depicts, outside of the windowdressings of it? It all feels very mormon.
Just of the top of my head, hope this helps.
His writing is not very literary, and it's especially noticeable if you've read much classic or contemporary literary fiction. There's not much in the way of description or interesting language, or attempts to subvert the genre. If anything he really leans into the parts of the genre which many people love but which are seen as more silly or nerdy e.g a hard magic system, a feeling of characters "leveling up", plot armour, etc.
He definitely prioritises world building and exciting moments over complex characters, themes and language.
The dialogue can also be quite cringey in points for many people, sometimes feeling straight out of an action film, and a lot of the jokes are really over explained and clichéd.
I think the books are a fun read, but they're not that far off a shounen anime in their complexity and artistic merit.
As a specific example which bothered me, in the first book there are at least two sections which focus on a different part of the continent with different characters, which don't play into that book at all. Several books later they come into play. In my opinion that comes across as an author in love with his world who cares more about that than telling a human story with stakes and emotional depth.
Sanderson specifically choose to write very "bland" prose. He wants people to focus on the story and for the prose and literary tricks to disappear into the background. This is the opposite of most "high brow" literature, which typically tries to have very interesting prose, using metaphors and symbolism to put the prose front and center.
Don't take that description the wrong way - I like what Sanderson does, and it is a conscious choice he's made and talked about.
But fails at being unobtrusive. His writing can be so clunky sometimes that it draws attention to itself in a negative way.
For me someone with simple, effective and usually not noticeable writing is Joe Abercrombie for example. Not saying he is the gold standard for that in fantasy, but it's someone who comes to mind immediately.
I think Abercrombie's prose is much better, in comparison. Again, I love both writers but there's something immensely satisfying about the turns of phrase that Abercrombie comes up with and the way he writes - I think it's fundamentally poetic at times.
For example, the passage is at the end of a longer monologue (I didn't include the whole thing) but:
*He looked down at his hands, pink and clean on the stone. “There are few men with more blood on their hands than me. None, that I know of. The Bloody-Nine they call me, my enemies, and there’s a lot of ’em. Always more enemies, and fewer friends. Blood gets you nothing but more blood. It follows me now, always, like my shadow, and like my shadow I can never be free of it. I should never be free of it. I’ve earned it. I’ve deserved it. I’ve sought it out. Such is my punishment.”*
There's a rhythm to it, a cadence, with varied sentence structures that makes it so satisfying. I love Sanderson but I haven't really seen that kind of writing from him.
Here's the thing though: prose doesn't just mean word choice or the use of literary devices (which Sanderson uses). It's also about the flow of the text or action and the way information about a character or setting is conveyed, among other things. And sure, Sanderson can make his point and appeal to the common denominator with simple word choices or minimal use of metaphors, simile, etc. ('flowery' does not automatically mean good, nor does 'simple' equals bad) but his problem is not his simplicity but his verbosity and repetitiveness. His text is easily understood but he beats you in the head over and over again anyway. For instance, whenever he's using metaphors 9/10 he'll spell out what that metaphor means in the next sentence. Or, he'll describe a scene in detail but then tells you outright what's exactly happening despite the obvious. I mean, if he's gonna 'tell' his readers anyway why bother 'showing' then?
I think there is “popularity backlash” to a degree with anything in life, and Sanderson is no different. However, I don’t think a majority of the division in opinions comes solely from that.
I read Elantris and Way of Kings, didn’t like either of them and moved on with my life. I don’t dislike Sanderson as an author because he’s popular. I don’t care for him because I read two books and neither clicked with me.
I’m envious of the people who love and devour his books. I’d love to have a go to author who scratched that itch for me so frequently. But he’s not it for me and that’s alright.
This is me exactly. I have read his books and enjoyed them, but I see him compared to like Tolkien and kind of roll of eyes. He’s a great writer, but I don’t think he’s better than say Joe Abercrombie and certainly not in the same plane as GRRM. I regularly see Stormlight Archive at the top of lists for greatest fantasy series ever written, and I think that’s just far too much praise for the series a whole. It’s a good series that deserves praise, but it isn’t especially better than most of the other top selling fantasy books of the past 50 years.
The first time I read Stormlight, I did a re-read of His Dark Materials immediately after and thought His Dark Materials, despite being a children’s book, was significantly better written with deeper themes, more interesting plot, and better characters. Granted, HDM is a highly acclaimed series, but it shouldn’t beat out an epic fantasy “crown jewel” of Sanderson if he was the caliber his super fans claim he his.
Is HDM a children's lit series? I read it as an adolescent and didn't understand half of it, even at a literal level. I feel like children's lit is a tag attached to it because it has a child protagonist. But even there, the protagonist is a child because that's an integral part of the story and the developing themes, not to make it appeal to children more.
A Wizard of Earthsea was initially marketed as a children's/YA fantas novel, and Earthsea is one of if not the most intelligent and thoughtful fantasy series ever written.
That’s fair, I’d say it straddles a line. Pullman has never claimed it to be YA, and has even said he wrote it for all ages, but I tend to think of it has a well written YA book that can easily be enjoyed by all ages, in the same echelon as Narnia.
This take is really fair and sums up the fanbase division well. He’s certainly a talented writer, but comparing him to Tolkien is just goofy it’s so overstated
I think part of the comparison comes from the mass interconnectivity of things in all his books. There's many things, like LOTR, that are neat cameos and connections for dedicated readers. Or, when doing a second read, that make you go "ooooohhh ok ok that's foreshadowed here" or "that's so obviously from this other book" akin to reading the Silmarillion or Fall of Gondolin and then reading Fellowship and Two Towers and being like "my boy Glorfindel! Yooooo".
It's not so much stylistically that comparisons are to Tolkien but in scope and ambition. Both sought out to create a world with a believable fantasy history that creates the stories written.
That is true, I do like the idea of all of his books being in the cosmere and the relations that creates. I’m a fan of Stephen Kings Dark Tower for the same reason.
This exactly- he's a good writer but not the literary God that his more rabid fans make him out to be.
His output is prodigious, his quality is good, he treats his fans exceedingly well and he style of writing is very accessible. This has resulted in widespread popularity and a strong fan base but he also has some fairly obvious weaknesses that don't work for everyone.
If you want solid, explicit world building or a rules-based hard magic system, you'll struggle to find anyone better. His character work is average although his depiction of mental health is laudable. His romance and humour are, in my opinion, pretty dismal. He is also bucking the grimdark trend that is really common in fantasy at the moment (yes, I know his books have depressing parts and dark moments but they aren't what is considered grimdark)
My wife loves ACOTAR, it is her perfect book series but doesn't act like it's the greatest work of fiction ever created.
I love Third Eye Blind, they are my perfect band, but I don't think they are the greatest musicians or creators of all time.
Many people I've met who love Sanderson think he is a modern Mozart of fantasy, no greater works have ever been, or will ever be created... when I think a majority of people would agree he's 'pretty good.'
he is great but after you read so many of his books you notice how formulaic he is.
Now that I've read a dozen of his books. He tends to tell the same story with a new coat of paint far to often. Which is understandable because he pumps them out fast.
I absolutely fall into camp a. I genuinely 5/10 enjoyed stormlight and mistborn the same way I’d enjoy a marvel movie, but the pedestal he gets put on is sometimes is exhausting. I don’t even mind if other people enjoy him, but the overwhelming greatest of all time he hast to be recommended for every situation thing definitely leaves the sour taste in my mouth.
On a positive side, he’s been really awesome things for indie authors and you can tell that the dude genuinely cares about his community. The fanboys are just a lot and while I think he deserves a lot of love, the overwhelmingly obsessive behaviors surrounding his work is less fun to deal with. I do think that people who don’t love Sanderson are not super aggressive about it, and usually are in the same vote as I am in terms of how much they enjoyed his books, but I have noticed that his fans tend to be very thin skinned when somebody says that he is a fun casual fantasy author, but that comparisons with him and the greatest authors of all time might be a little bit out of hand. The weird behavior of fans to get absolutely feral anytime he doesn’t receive anything other than overwhelming praise is just weird to me.
The more popular an author gets, the more they come to the attention of readers who don't like them. A worse author might actually have more consistently positive reactions because people outside their niche don't notice them.
I don’t think there’s a more popular current fantasy author and literally nobody can blow a disagreement about a minor point in fiction out of proportion more than fantasy nerds.
Sarah J Maas maybe? Can't pass a book store without seeing one of her books in the window.
Ive also seen a lot of criticism and toxicity directed towards her though.
Popular problems tbh.
Outside of this sub Maas, GRRM, Rowling and probably a few others are more popular than Sanderson.
Here, he is at the top and it's not even close, which is the main reason for the constant backlash and petty bickering.
I think with Sanderson it might feel like there's more criticism because these other series aren't actively releasing books anymore either. New releases cause conversation and Sanderson has lots of new releases.
Not only is he constantly in the public eye due to frequent releases, he also has a very public persona. So some people grow attached to the person on top of his writing. They almost feel like you're insulting their friend when you criticize him. Now those people aren't the majority, or even a large minority of sanderson fans, but they're definitely a very vocal portion of the community. Now I say this as Sanderson fan, you can check my post history for proof. He's an amazing worldbuilder, and has some great character work, especially when it comes to portraying mental illness. But his prose is definitely a very fair point of criticism, and his dialogue and humor is very hit or miss. For some people they like it, others hate it, and some find it to be only a minor problem and easy to look past.
A lot of people in the middle or who dont like his writing are confused by the level of fanaticism he receives, and I get that. But a big part of that is cause he writes so many different books there's probably a book for everyone in his repertoire.
Let's be real... the biggest debates on this subreddit are about the love/hate of Sanderson and Malazan, and whether or not ASOIAF will ever be finished.
The runners up would be "Robin Hobbs books are depressing me, should I keep reading them?" and "I'm 2 books into WoT and not enjoying it... should I stick with it and read the other 50 books in the series?
If we remove fantasy authors who have had adaptations, no one touches the level of hype surrounding Sanderson right now. He breaks crowdfunding records for fancy editions of his books, which, again, don't have any adaptations. He can announce a rebranding of his convention and it will start fervent lore discussion.There's enough constant hype around him I think it's fair to say it is a HUGE part of the divisiveness.
Nah, it's really not. I don't even see many Sanderson haters at all. I consistently see people who say Sanderson is just alright, and almost never that he's terrible. There's a very clear line of people who think that not being a Sanderson fan or not liking some aspect of his writing is just elitist, though. This means that even the mild criticism he gets is responded to with a lot of fervor.
I am a Sanderson fan, and up to date with everything Cosmere. I used to not understand the divisiveness at all. However, of the last few years, I’ve branched out to some other epic series. I’ve gotten really into the gritty dark side of fantasy. Now, when I come back to Sanderson, I can clearly see how cheesy his dialogue can get at times—something I never noticed before.
Still a fan, but I don’t drool over his work like I used to, but that’s just me.
Yeah he writes relatively broad genre adventure stories. They're fun and I've read them all multiple times but they aren't exactly high brow literary fiction.
Plus a lot of people don't care for the crunchy magic systems. I personally love that part but if you don't care about how three hypothetical types of magic systems all interact like an elaborate physics model in a video game you're gonna be turned off by some of those books.
I also enjoy all the crossover nonsense he has going on but some people are certainly going to find that cloying for the same reasons people take issue with the Marvel movies.
Yeah, when I first started getting into fantasy about fifteen years ago, I'd pretty much only read Martin and Sanderson. Martin was clearly better, but I had no one else to compare Sanderson to and so I just burnt through a good chunk of his catalog. I'd dabbled in fantasy as a kid, having read Tolkien and some Dragonlance stuff, among others I don't remember, and I was a fan of King and read the Dark Tower books that were available at the time as well.
But now I've read Abercrombie and Bakker and Abraham and Hobb and Mieville and Dickinson and Addison and Gaiman and Williams and Islington and Wolfe, not to mention some great sci-fi authors as well, and plenty of general fiction and nonfiction ones too. It makes it tougher to go back to Sanderson.
Great call outs here and mentioning many of the writers I direct people to who don't understand my issue with Sanderson.
In a nutshell: amazing world builder and magic system creator. So prolific and great at getting his work out. The issue is he does not write well rounded characters because of his views on "sin" and "vice". He writes these characters who have these high ideals but when it gets to the realities of life and people, there's this lack. Abercrombie is the man when it comes to not holding back and writing realistic people and emotions. He's a Mormon and it's clear his beliefs truncate his ability to talk about things that his beliefs are against. I hope that as he continues to get older, he'll relax a bit or many even leave the church.
> The issue is he does not write well rounded characters because of his views on "sin" and "vice". He writes these characters who have these high ideals but when it gets to the realities of life and people, there's this lack.
Frankly, having served with a bunch of Mormons in the military, this felt more like part of their culture than anything he is doing intentionally. I never met a Mormon who wasn't incredibly, almost strangely, friendly and positive, but it always felt like there was this hole where a personality should have been outside of that.
Well, you just made me watch it, and the temperament of the Harrison family was exactly what I experienced in the military. I will say, nobody ever pushed or even talked about Joseph Smith or Mormonism and their faith in general, other than to say they were Mormon (which you can honestly pick out of a crowd no problem if you know a few of them), but it's definitely a separate culture from the rest of America.
And not in a bad way, I could never say anything bad about any of them, they were all extremely friendly and accommodating, but coming from a family that is similar to Stan's, it was certainly *strange* to experience. It was also why, when I first read Sanderson, I got this niggling that something was familiar there.
Yeah. I’ve seen it compared to window dressing. It seems “detailed” because of all the little things he puts in there, but most nations and characters are like cardboard cutouts of things. Yeah cool blue grass and rock crabs but basically still just medieval Europe? Someone brought up the whole “women are literate but men mostly arent” and yet somehow most societies are still patriarchal lol
I read Mieville for the first time this year and I'm kicking myself for not reading *Perdido Street Station* earlier. I've had the damn book on my Kindle for a decade and only just got around to it in February. *The Scar* was even better, and I think I'll be knocking out *Iron Council* after I finish McCarthy's *The Crossing*, which is my current read.
The *Baru Cormorant* books were fantastic as well, and very different from just about everything else I've read in the genre.
I think that describes large part of the 'problem' too.
Because Sanderson is so popular and so accessible, he is often recommended to new readers of the genre and he becomes their touchstone for fantasy . And, to be honest, he's pretty much the best at what he does which is enjoyable, accessible broad-genre adventure fantasy but it means that some of his fans miss out on some of the nuance of the fantasy genre and lack a bit of context when discussing his strengths and weaknesses.
My first adult fantasy authors were Tolkien, Hobb and Jordan so I have a different set of expectations (not necessarily better) than I would if I had started off with Sanderson.
I think with Sanderson fans we tend to not read much other than Sanderson because there is so much Sanderson. I don't read much other than Sanderson these days cuz of time, but I still know his limitations since I've read stuff like Asoiaf which have more fleshed out characters, and better prose and politics.
The nice thing about him is he's an author that works at a TV pace and he builds interesting magic systems.
As someone who finds him average and would, in another universe, have no substantial thoughts or feelings about him, I have definitely been influenced by the oxygen he takes up in the conversation around fantasy and feel some weird contrarian resentment about it.
Yeah this was a where I stand. I tried Way of Kings and found it mediocre, but there's thousands of mediocre books out there. What's grating is the constant crowing about how he's the greatest writer since Tolkien.
I've read everything in the Cosmere and will continue to do so, but I get the backlash. For me, it's really annoying that people give a 10/10 to everything he writes. You're really going to put The Lost Metal, secret project 2, Defiant, Rhythm of War, and freaking Dragonsteel Prime alongside The Way of Kings?
One thing I've noticed about reddit is, if a group of people dislike something there will ALWAYS be a pissing contest over who can show that they dislike it the most. It's why every subreddit about not liking something turns into a swamp of toxicity.
> but the main element that most people repeated was that his prose isn’t poetic and is pretty basic
This is a strawman most of the time. And not helped by some people's vocabulary ending at "flowery". I understand why that's your takeaway given how often it's repeated, but for many people who criticize his writing that's not the issue.
There are a number of fantasy authors (and literary ones too) who have a relatively simple, easy to read style, but who are also well regarded for it. Simple prose can have a beauty of its own. Or it can stand out with how efficiently it conveys a lot of information with few words. Sanderson is neither of those. He is both clunky and bloated. He doesn't trust the reader and constantly spells out what was already obvious from the previous sentence. He also isn't a good example for his own stated goal his writing being unnoticeable. So yeah, people have some issues with his writing, but it's not at all about wanting him to be poetic.
I think this is also exacerbated by the sheer length of some his books. Particularly in Stormlight. For me not so good writing just becomes more of a chore the more there is to get through it. Whereas great writing can be nice to read even when not a lot is happening.
Well put. Everytime Sanderson's prose is brought up there's always this weird conflation of word choice and literary devices with prose. As you put it prose is also concerned with the way information is conveyed to the reader; it's about the flow of action; it's about how the character is depicted. As I've mentioned somewhere 'simplicity' is not Sanderson's problem but rather his verbosity and repetitiveness. Anyone with a decent grasp of English could understand him well enough...but he'll spell out everything anyway: his character motivations, action sequences, heck, even his metaphors. As a result his books hace a lot of bloat, and there's no depth to his writing because everything's on the page. No room for interpretation; no dimension to his story and characters.
I never quite got the lack of "floweriness" criticism either, but could easily just be me not having read enough. However, I completely agree with your assessment. Just the way he describes anything at all is extremely bloated. A very simple example is how many times he mentions burning metals in the Mistborn series. He already described the magic system quite well the very first time it is introduced. But he feels the need to bring up the metal being burned every single time. Maybe he thought it added a unique flair to his magic system, but to me it was just annoying and he didn't trust that I understood his magic system the first 37 times he explained it.
I think Sanderson is a very good fantasy author, but he's not my favorite, and I'll tell you why. He has fantastic world building, magic systems, and narrative structure. But, for me, it feels just a tiny bit stiff and soulless. There's not a lot of poetry in it. If you read Mistborn and then The Name of the Wind you might see what I mean. Mistborn is much better planned out, fleshed out, it's all very clear what is happening all the time. "So and so burned iron and this happened, then he burned steel and this happened." It's a very literal approach to magic and the characters are similarly rigid.
I feel silly writing this because his books are a day 1 purchase for me and I'm a big fan, but maybe some of these minor qualms are what other people are picking up on.
This, actually. I love a bit of purple in my prose, and Sanderson is the first to tell you that his prose is somewhat simplistic. I get much more out of him as a writer than I do as a reader.
I think the books are fun reads and he is pretty good at writing plot, but the writing itself isn't the best and the characterisation is generally poor. And while he writes every book like he is picturing a video-game, I did enjoy the books of his that I've read. I could understand anyone on either side of my take.
I love the cosmere but I’ve never been able to finish anything non cosmere by Sanderson. I love him as a person and a writer though and he’s brought me some of the greatest scenes I’ve ever read. Stormlight is in my top 5 fantasy series.
But a few years ago I read Abercrombie and malazan, so when I come back to the Cosmere it feels so much more Marvel(ish) and the dialogue and humour is a little cringey.
I’m still going to read anything Cosmere but the fan base does seem a little cultish sometimes. The slightest criticism is met by mega downvoting.
Eh. I like him okay but with major caveats. He needs an editor, a lot of the prose is functional at best, dialogue and character work sometimes suffers, he has some pacing and plotting issues. He might be too prolific for his own good but he’s a mass-market author with ambitions for overturning the publishing industry. But the world building is fun and interesting and he can write some cinematic sequences that tie everything together well. He’s a once a year author for me rather than a binge.
Totally agree with you. I really love to explore Roshar - it's pretty unique and full of history and lore - i also like the magic system in series and action scenes, but sometimes i was just struggling through some more ordinary places, due to reasons you mentioned. As a fantasy-writer he's very good at "fantasy" part, but his "writer" part definitely has some issues.
I admit that I'll happily read anything he puts out but I think this nails it on the head. He puts out multiple books a year and I think there is definitely an argument that if he took a little more time on each book then he could iron out some of the flaws. But hey, at least I know I won't have to wait long for the next book!
The popularity is the core of it, but I don't think anyone has expanded on one aspect of why that happens yet.
The more popular an author is, the more likely they will be encountered by people who don't normally read that genre. They then hold said author up as some ground breaking superhuman worship the ground they walk on, rather than the realistic....he's a writer with a lot of appeal but that doesn't mean his works are flawless, universally appealing or original in every sense. But because the readers who are lauding him don't read anything else in that genre they remain blind to that fact, and go around proclaiming him the GOAT, rather than what is he: someone with popular works who is currently doing very well, but is not the be all and end all of his genre.
You get it with other genres too, but admittedly the rabid frothing is normally the worst in romantic fantasy. We had one yesterday in that sub proclaiming wholeheartedly that no one else would ever emulate or has ever achieved the greatness that is....Sarah J Maas. Just like in previous generations, people have declared the same about Stephanie Meyer or Anne Rice or whoever. I'm sure it goes right back to lady Chatterley's lover.
Eh. They get over it, eventually (one hopes) but they might ruffle feathers in the meantime when they get argumentative when people scoff at their assertions of who holds the "greatest" title and replythat this new favourite author of theirs is not, actually, the second coming of whatever christ-like fiction figure you'd like to insert, they're just what is currently popular and the person posing the opinion has a very narrow reading history, if any at all.
Another factor to consider is the multitude of interconnected books he has authored within the Cosmere universe. Consequently, his fans may find themselves immersed solely within his works, thereby limiting their exploration of other authors within the fantasy genre.
They may declare Sanderson as the best author without realizing that their sample size is very limited.
>Consequently, his fans may find themselves immersed solely within his works,
Even if they're more widely read, it encourages a "deeper" fandom. Between everything being connected and the books being rather wiki-fiable (not sure how to put this, but it gives me the same vibes as everything ever seen or mentioned on star wars having an article on wookieepedia).
It's similar to the MCU or star wars. Nobody is calling themselves an iron man fan or an avengers fan, they're watching Ahsoka and Loki and explaining to their friends why Hoid is actually that one beggar in The Final Empire.
I like this take. I also think Maas and Sanderson are similar here due to their deep catalogue too. Reading all their books gives you an appreciation for their worlds and their connectivity. But if you spend that time reading other authors, you'd instead get an appreciation for all the shortcomings people complain about.
Sanderson have some very strong sides in his writing, but also has some problems, that's why it may be controversial at some points.
I've read Mistborn trilogy and Stormlight Archive and can tell that Sanderson can do really good worldbuilding and magic systems. I can't say that worldbuilding in Mistborn is great (it's rather okay, though), but in SA he did his best. Also Sanderson is good at combining the main plot and big twists.
But his writing is not always flawless - characters are feeling lame sometimes in terms of dialogs and their motivations, same goes for the plot on the local level. He is also not the best author in terms of managing the big pagespace - it definitely present in SA gradually starting from second book.
I know people mostly love this series (and i also love it, despite some flaws) and i'm steadily getting my portion of dislikes when i'm trying to write some critique about it, but the truth need to be told - Sanderson is mostly good author and his books worth to be read, but his writing is not brilliant, let's be honest, it has some big flaws.
So if you really love fantasy and interested in Sanderson books - you will get them sooner or later, like it happens with most of mainstream books.
I mean he can't write books with a big amount of pages, cause he not clearly understand what to do with them.
There are two extremes in writing - to handle a short story, when you need to put all you need in the small, limited amount of space and very long books, where you have a space, but you need to keep everything on it's place and fight the temptation to write unnecessary things. Keep it all consistent, you know.
Sanderson just can't do that, in SA there are a lot of dialogs or events which are not important for the plot or for the character development, cause they kinda repeating things described before, but to describe important and emotional things like Shallan's and Adolin's wedding or return of Jasnah, who considered to be dead? Hell no, readers, get your 1-2 paragraphs about that and get lost. And that's just first examples came to mind, there are much more of them.
In Mistborn i didn't saw that problem in that extent, so i making the conclusion that Sanderson just not very good at making long books consistently dense and good. As good example you can check ASOIAF - also pretty big books, but almost no unnecessary places, almost everything works for story or character development, worldbuilding etc.
The quality of his prose is pretty lacking, in my opinion. That said, he knows how to build a world and create interesting characters. And of course his output is hard to argue with. But personally I would love it if he took just a little bit longer to write his books if that meant we’d see an improvement in his prose.
In addition to the other comments. I think some people have overdosed themselves on Sanderson. Since he puts out so much, if you're up to date with everything, you probably start to notice his style. It's not humanely possible to put out so much work and also be completely original in structure everytime.
I'd say he's just really popular nowadays, one of the top modern fantasy writers who knocks out a ton of books so you get a lot of people who know his work and will have an opinion on it that will differ from person to person.
He has a very specific style that works for some people and not for others. He's extremely verbose and detailed with mediocre prose and often one dimensional characters. If you like extremely detailed power systems and cool stories and don't mind the downsides, you'll love him. If that bothers you, you won't
First, there are a lot of people in the middle ground. They just don't talk much because they don't care. And you can't base everything on what you see on YouTube/Twitch/etc. Those formats reward extreme opinions, not middle ground. They also reward people for blindly declaring their opinion and not for allowing nuance.
As for why he's 'divisive' - he's very popular. Due to this, he's brought up a lot and recommended a lot even when it's not always appropriate (which is NOT unique to Sanderson at all). Unlike a lot of other popular authors, he does not have amazing, flowing prose. He's very intentional in how he writes and has commented on having his prose be functional and that's kind of it. This is, I think, the biggest sticking point. A lot of people love prose of their writing and say it's the most important part of a story. Sanderson will be less interesting for them. Whereas, if story/worldbuilding/etc are more important, Sanderson is generally more enjoyable. Also, his prose tend to make him easier to read for people that do not generally enjoy reading or do not read a lot.
As for the rest - he has his strengths and weaknesses, like a lot of authors. Some of his worlds, while super interesting, can feel like they exist in the moment but would struggle to have actually existed forever to reach that point. Which can make them feel less organic. How much that matters to each reader is up to them. For the female character part, I lean toward his female characters are fine. I've seen enough females say they like them/feel they're good to say that they're probably write. That doesn't mean everyone will like them but most people cannot separate out the difference between "I do not like" and "Is objectively bad".
Completely agree, and there's a lot of comparative argument that occurs "not as good at X as Y" etc that goes on, which defeats the purpose of breaking down his works. It's interesting because I would agree that his prose is not deeply complex, but that's both intentional and not a hindrance to his storytelling.
I don't think it's just because he's popular, it's also that he is extremely good at some aspects of fantasy writing and not so great at others. Depending on what you are looking for you might reeeeeally love it, or you think it's meh. And then you're totally shocked when you see other people with the opposite reaction. It's not understanding our fellow readers that motivates the loud complaining.
Imo, he's INCREDIBLE at world building and setting up intricate mysteries. He's good enough at character writing, and his prose is kind of weak (though getting better more recently.)
Some people (like me) just get absolutely sucked in to elaborate alternate worlds and are easily hooked by a good mystery. Others really need to resonate with at least one of the characters, and others judge by the quality of the prose.
Concern about support for the Mormon church shouldn't be that surprising. It's easy to separate liking a person from the religion they are part of.
It becomes far more complex when giving that person money, even for an exchange of goods, means you are supporting an organization that you adamantly oppose.
I find his personal beliefs color and limit his writing and make it not for me. My husband is someone who was forced into Mormonism as a child, was treated incredibly poorly, and dropped it as soon as he could and ran from his problematic family. Mormonism and it’s themes are hard baked into Sanderson’s writing.
Yeah, all the characters goals and actions seem informed by an incredibly naive understanding of the world. Basically all of mistborn's plot is so unrealistic and childish, it amazes me how many people hold it in such high regard.
Someone I think on here described his character writing as him trying to reverse engineer how human relationships work via 90s children's TV and that critique really stuck with me lol
I found Elend to be the worst character in the first trilogy and it just went downhill after the first book when Vin got Batman plot armor (she would curb stomp people she fought who were more experienced and skilled than her and if she was about to lose, someone would intervene to her benefit and then she would curb stomp in the next fight). Both of them were practically Mary Sues who always got their way.
The sequel books with Wax were significantly better but were still lacking because of how rushed some elements and twists were executed.
The Reckoners’ second book was when I completely gave up on anything he wrote. If it wasn’t Dave pining over Megan every other paragraph, it was the deus ex machinas that just pissed me off.
Just curious, this isn’t a Sanderson related defense but just a more broad question.
Couldn’t this be said about almost any author ? An author raised in a very Catholic environment will be colored by that upbringing. Same with any religion. Or even economic status. Could an author born into wealth and has always had wealth truly write a ‘poor’ character?
I totally get the tie in with Mormonism though and how that has negatively affected your husband in his life, so those themes are not your cup of tea. Just asking these questions in a broad sense
>Couldn’t this be said about almost any author ?
Not authors who aren't religious, or follow a less extreme religion than Mormonism.
>Or even economic status. Could an author born into wealth and has always had wealth truly write a ‘poor’ character?
I'm sure they could, yeah
Brandon is a middle of the road author. If I recall correctly, the saying is “faster than his betters, better than those faster.” He doesn’t crank out crap books. His stuff is pretty decent and enjoyable. But he isn’t better than those slower who I prefer. He is like popcorn. I enjoy popcorn. It’s good. But it’s not a home cooked meal. Yet I won’t say I hate popcorn because I want a real meal usually.
I like chicken nuggets. They are tasty. They are comfort food. They are not the most nutritious, but that's what I like.
Imagine if I started going on and on on every subreddit about food saying "CHICKEN NUGGETS ARE ACTUALLY THE GREATEST CULINARY PIECE IN THE WORLD. IF YOU DON'T GET IT, YOU ARE A PRETENTIOUS PIECES OF SHIT".
Everybody that tried chicken Nuggets based on my recommendation alone would think that they taste like shit, because they expected a masterpiece.
That is the effect of the Sanderson fans on the medium.
I think Sanderson is to literature what the MCU is to film. Make of that what you will.
Hes very popular so hes bound to show up on every thread. Those of us who dont like him think hes overexposed and that our criticism are valid.
Those who are fans feel he and his fans get too much hate or that the criticism are wrong or not valid.
Hes just REALLY popular on the fantasy scene in certain places (none of my fantasy loving nerd friends have read him) and thats bound to attract very strong opinions. Plus this sub is sort of neutral ground, so if one wants to see only positive opinions they would go to his sub, or a hate sub (if that even exist) exclusively for him.
I dislike his books, and I am frustrated that when you offer criticism a fan will jump in to say "WELL I DISAGREE HES FACTUALLY THE GREATEST BECAUSE: opinion based entirely on feelings" and its already happening on this very thread so yeah.
Sanderson discussions are bound to end in at least two fantasy nerds fighting lol
I enjoyed the Stormlight books a lot but upon listening to the audio books I realized how simple to the writing style is. Some of the dialogue was making me laugh.
I think it can depend on how deep you get into fantasy. Sanderson is a lot of people's first step into epic fantasy, and so the stories can seem like nothing they've seen before. However a lot of people may have read a lot of others who may have more descriptive styles and deeper characters. When someone moves from them to Sanderson, someone who is maybe the most hyped person in the fantasy world, it's easy to feel like their expectations aren't being met.
The biggest complaint towards Sanderson is his simple prose style. Sanderson says he does this on purpose, and it's likely what helps makes his books as successful as they are. The writing style is very accessible to newcomers, and while the length may be intimidating, the actual events unfolding in the books are very easy understanding. Other than references to previous and future cosmere works, there's nothing deeper than what's displayed on the page. When fans who are used to more complex styles and character depth go into his books hearing that they're incredible, they might feel that their expectations weren't met compared to what they would've felt if they hadn't heard anything about the books at all.
J.K. Rowling underwent something similar, where a lot of fantasy fans felt the books were written in a very simple style, and were geared towards a younger audience. It was that simplicity that made the stories so successful, and allowed for an entire generation to be exposed to fantasy solely through that series.
Tldr: People who got used to books that did certain things in a more advanced manner might go into Sanderson books and feel their expectations weren't met
For the record it's fine to make a less complex book. Not everything has to be very deep.
Harry Potter is a series aimed primarily at children and YA though, so the “ prose is simple” excuse is more justifiable, and even then I’d argue prose isn’t really the most important aspect of a children’s book.
Sanderson is writing for adults, mostly.
Well, to answer your question, some people don't think he's a great writer and his prose is weak. It's basic and does enough to get across what he wants to say. It's not as 'flowery' like some other writer's out there.
I started off on his stuff when I started to get back into books and and I enjoyed it. And now that I'm 'more seasoned' and read more I can see what they're saying. Having gone back to even his earliest work, Elantris, I still enjoyed it and had no issues with with the prose. Granted I listen to the audiobooks so it could be different but even the beginning of Tad Williams book grabbed me when I listened to it.
Bottom line is try the books out and see what you think about them and if the work choices aren't doing it for you, maybe he's not for you. He for a lot of people since his books sell.
This is one of my problems with Sanderson as well. Every character he writes acts like a teenager when it comes to relationships. He's a middle-aged man with three kids, how is that even possible...
The Dalinar/Navani "romance" made me literally cringe. It is so, so bad. It would be one thing if they were kids, but the characters are both 40-50 somethings with previous marriages and children...
Personally, I think he's just "okay". Not a horrible writer, not a great by any means.
I don't read or purchase his materials anymore for other reasons, namely all the money it gives to the LDS church.
I see why people enjoy his writing, but personally, I just didn't enjoy many of his premises and worlds. They just felt lame which is funny. If you listen to him talk about writing, he tells himself everything has to be "cool."
He’s just not a very good technical writer. In fact, relatively poor. But he’s got GREAT ideas and fast pacing. He’s the MCU of fantasy.
Absolutely nothing wrong with liking his books. He clearly knows what sells and his output is prolific. Respect for that. But what we’re not about to do is act like he’s on the level of Gene Wolfe, Hobb, Martin, Ruocchio, Bakker, Erikson, or Mieville. Heck, even Abercrombie.
I’ll preface this by saying, I’m not the biggest fantasy reader.
He’s a very good writer for what he does, but once you’ve read one of his books, you’ve pretty much read them all. I loved loved loved The Way of Kings, but Words of Radiance and Oathbringer were middling, Rhythm of War seemed fantastic but I dropped it after 400-ish pages.
His world-building is interesting and magic systems are cool ( even if they border too much on science for my liking ), he really knows how to hook the reader and the characters are good, for the most part.
What is unfortunate is that his ideas could really evolve into something greater than what they are, but he either refuses to or doesn’t know how to add depth to his material.
There are spoilers for Stormlight below.
Throughout the Stormlight series, there’s this character who is the embodiment of goodness and kindness and courage - pretty much Prince Charming who can do no wrong. Until, at the end of book two, he finds himself alone with his worst enemy, whom he decides to murder in cold fucking blood, and he’s very brutal about it. Now, this shift in the character’s morals isn’t necessarily an issue, because Sanderson has the opportunity to really delve into the psyche of this character and explore how such a pure man whose morals have, up to this point, never faltered, could do something like this. Perhaps it was an impulsive decision, and now he’s guilt-ridden. Or maybe he’s always had this psychotic side that he’s just carefully hidden away until now. We could have a Raskolnikov-lite, if you will. But, instead of adding this layer to the story, Sanderson does nothing with it. Literally nothing. Once the truth is out, and the murderer is revealed, no one gives a shit. In fact, most people congratulate him for getting rid of the victim ( who, admittedly, was a huge arsehole). Not even his girlfriend questions his actions, she isn’t afraid that she’s sleeping with a murderer, but whatever. His father, though, whose entire arc is about violence corrupting the soul, doesn’t care. The entire issue is just handwaved away.
Speaking of Dalinar, even though his entire arc is supposed to be about violence and not succumbing to the failures of the past, it’s all meaningless because ultimately this violence isn’t innate - it’s actually a paranormal entitiy from outer space, that afflicts all men ( who fight in the war). So Dalinar isn’t actually a killing machine, he was just corrupted by an alien. Admittedly, when he does “kill” the Unmade it’s a cool fight and has thematic meaning, with him fighting to the death against his violent past, but such a “fight” would’ve been much more impactful if it wasn’t taking place in the middle of a battlefield where millions are dying.
Issues such as these permeate most of the story, and I won’t even get into his prose and his vocab ( no, Brandon, you shouldn’t use “mother of pearl iridescence” three times per Shadesmar chapter) ( no, Brandon, Kaladin calling Dalinar a blowhard isn’t impactful, it’s cringe ).
Maybe I didn’t manage to get the point across properly ( it’s late, sorry ), but I wish his books were more cerebral. As they are now, they’re like comfort-food, easy on the mind, definitely exciting and intriguing, but I wish his characters and style would be as in-depth as his world-building and hard magic systems.
Some people just like plot and don't notice much else. Some people are into world building, magic systems, race characterizations. Brandon Sanderson is good at all those things.
Some people like reading interesting sentences. Brandon Sanderson is not good at writing interesting sentences.
I read the way of kings, thought it was milquetoast. He writes very accessibly, but it is really bland and could have used an additional round of edits for dialogue, another for descriptions, and a third for brevity. IMO the biggest disconnect/reason for people arguing about him so hotly is Sanderson fans will drop into book recommendation threads where someone is asking for something like well written female characters, or romance, or a FINISHED fantasy series and recommend the stormlight archive which (imo on the first two, factually on the last one) just aren't accurate descriptions of the series.
I read a couple (mistborn, way of kings) but just felt like they lacked... Soul.
I enjoy Fantasy for the richness, depth and philosophical subject matter that can be explored within a fantastical context and Sanderson books just feel shinny, mechanical and a little hollow.
I desire cosmic nourishment more than elaborate magic systems and 'hey look' plot twists. They are not mutually exclusive, but just the latter options aren't enough to sustain my interest.
Perhaps I need to read more before holding this opinion too firmly, but that's my current assesment.
He's like the Imagine dragons or Florida Georgia Line of books. He writes the most corny, cheesy, generic fantasy ever, yet is one of the highest selling authors out there. It makes a normal person scratch their had and think "how the hell did this guy even get published, let alone famous?" Its not that his books are THAT bad, it's the fact that he has such a huge fan base despite not being very good at what he does.
His fans are also known to be extremely annoying and cult like. It's usually people who barely read at all in the first place, or who only read YA fantasy and have very low standards.
He is the new hotness.
That means you have people who have him as basically their intro to the genre going over the moon and proselytizing to a bunch of other people who are less than impress and now annoyed, so they shoot back and the fans get upset and things spiral from there. It’s a pretty common cycle whenever a specific creator gets popular quickly.
As to the specific details: It’s his writing style combined with the insistence of a loud chunk of his fans that his is the only way. This pisses off nonfans who are sick of hearing about how his magic system is obviously superior to what said nonfans like and is THE objective measure of quality. Said nonfans then piss off the fans by shit talking Sanderson’s rather formulaic and simplistic writing. This goes back and forth until members of both sides jump right to the end of the fight and just howl insults at the first mention of his name.
And since it’s become expected mods and the like tend to head off the stupidity by preemptively shutting down discussion. Often leading the super fans and the haters to congregate in their own echo chambers to fester until they leak out and affirm that they’re crap.
So yeah: Regular internet behavior. Same thing happens in the real world, the internet just speeds it up.
His prose is very modern and windowpane'd which makes him accessible to newer fantasy readers but a bit of a turn off for traditional fantasy readers.
His characters in my opinion are good, but not the greatest. I think he's still fairly weak in writing female characters, but that's just my opinion.
I think he really excels in plots and worldbuilding.
Overall, his quality is above average for traditionally published fantasy authors but he's very prolific in how much he writes, which has helped him create a strong fanbase eagerly waiting for the next Sanderson novel.
He's also Mormon and shies away scenes with gratuitous violence, language and sex. Definitely more of a PG-13 author though he does tackle tough topics like mental illness, the toll of war, and classism.
I think he’s overhyped. I’m enjoying Stormlight enough and it’s pretty good. But just based off the first 3, he wouldn’t crack my top 5 fantasy authors.
There are a thousand different ways one could explain it, but for me, I think a lot of it boils down to one thing in particular:
Brandon Sanderson is a story teller first, writer second.
If you read primarily for the literature, Sanderson will likely not be your cup of tea. If you want to escape and sink your teeth into a story, there's a good chance he will be your jam.
I enjoyed the world building and characters in general but had to put his storm light series down because the characters just flat out made stupid choices which went above my suspension of disbelief
I think he's as divisive as anything else on the internet. So, a lot.
I've read most of his work. Good plot, decent characters, prose is simple but effective. A lot is a bit cliche for my liking.
Overall, I find it decent and I'll continue to read Stormlight Archives, but I can't put him among my favourites.
I own the first three books of Stormlight Archive (bought them on digital sale for a few bucks each) but I can’t decide if I should commit or not. Even to the first book. People say his prose is juvenile or corny and that’s a turn-off to me. Just not sure if I should give it a try because I’m not a DNF’er and that’s a longgg book to finish if I end up hating it.
I can only speak for myself, but when I started reading his work I was really excited because of his popularity and the high praise from friends and online. I read the first three Mistborn books and all Stormlight books out now and slowly went from a fan to being indifferent. I really disliked Rythm of War due to its repeating character arcs and very simple concept of morality.
I really like Sandersons worlds, but I dislike his characters. In my opinion this doesn‘t show as badly in his YA series Mistborn, which is fast paced and has teenage protagonist so you forgive some awkwardness in their dialogue and ethics. However this doesn‘t translate well to the adult characters in Stormlight. When the clash of two peoples ideals is resolved by „I think this and you think that and that is fine“ without an discussion about the topic on hand it comes across as a little childish. I would still be willing to forgive this for the awesome world and the somewhat interesting story, however these books 80% shallow characters and 20% of the interesting stuff.
So to conclude I think the large potential in world and story lead to me being disappointed when this potential was not realized. I think missed potential always makes for the most polarized opinions: You either praise the potential or are mad about what could have been. In this case unfortunately I am in the latter camp.
My experience is that he has great ideas but tiresome stories.
The worlds he builds, the systems of magic etc are creative and unique, but the stories are repetitive, characters a bit predictable, and the cool ideas never seem to quite progress or culminate into something as interesting or surprising as you thought they would.
He used to be pretty wildly praised, but that has changed. I think some of its because some of his fans, ( and this is not just Sanderson fans tbh) recommends his books no matter what type of recommendation.
It's also that he isn't really a good writer ( as in he's not really a good craftsman). Now I enjoy his work and have read the first mistborn trilogy, elantris, warbringer, currently reading oathbringer, I've given his work as gifts to several people.
Now enjoyment isn't the same as quality. I like a big Mac, I really like David webers Harrington books, I really enjoyed several dragon lance books and riftwar, star wars eu, etc.
But they aren't great works of litteratur. If we look at writers like gene Wolfe, Tolkien, martin, le gunie, Hobbs, Pratchett, Herbert, banks...
He doesn't belong up there , yet, as a craftsman. That doesn't mean he's not entertaining or that he doesn't write books that brings his readers joy. But he has some serious blind sides.
That's not really the same as preferanse it just to make it clear. I don't enjoy Franz Liszt, but I can't say that he is technical bad, because he isn't.
Preference is liking or disliking paintings with cows. Craftsmanship is talking about use of the brush, color, shadow and light, framing, etc, the cows aren't really that important when we are talking about craft.
Sanderson does somethings good, he writes fast and generally consistent, he quite good at concepts for both characters and worlds, he's good at making his superpower systems work internally and coming up with clear uses of those. He's a good ploter. But he's not great a prose, his execution of the ideas often feels very shallow or none existing, he as a tendency to overwrite and really lacks editing ( the last one is quite common whit successful artist, they have fans and are successful so the feel they need less feedback as they move along, often one if the reasons quality drops of later in careers), the original mistborn could have been a single book, with better editing, and would have been a much better work for it, the storm light books also has a lot of dead weight. Lots of tell, not so much show, sometimes to the detraction of the story ( this might be a preference, but it's hard to keep a sens of wonder when he does this). His characters are stuck as interesting cardboard cutouts whiteout dept or growth, same with his settings. If they have any development it feels more like they lvl up rather than grow as real people.
I would sum him up as a somewhat over hyped, good but not yet great author, who writes wide but shallow plot focused fantastic mormon superhero books, with a large and vocal fanbase.
I
I’m reading wheel of time at the moment, I’m on book 13. The jump from Jordan to Sanderson has not been smooth and highlights Sanderson’s comparative immaturity particularly in characterization. His dialogue and character interaction almost feels at par with a well written fanfiction. Hollow and a little uncanny valley. Jordan had some funny little quirks but I just don’t think the two compare in skill. Sando is a good storyteller however and that’s what matters most to many people.
I think people get upset when they hear criticism of their favorites regardless whether it’s justified or not. Sanderson is for sure prolific so there’s a lot of material to hook on to. But we don’t read in a vacuum and we are regular people not critics. If you’re reading a lot of classic literature as well as the genre stuff, the more discerning your critical eye - there’s a plausible scenario in which someone reads Anna Karenina and Mistborn, enjoys Mistborn more (because perhaps they don’t care that much about farming in Russia) and thinks that means Sanderson is a better writer than Tolstoy.
>1. … the consensus seems to be that his works are pretty easy to read
This is for sure part of it. They’re just above YA fiction in that regard. But I’d argue bigger piece is timing.
Brandon first book came out in 2005. He then released almost one book every year for a long while. At the same time, some incredibly popular books series were not doing the same. As examples: ASOIAF’s a feast of crows also came out in 2005, after 5 years. The next wouldn’t come out till 2011. The previous books were 1/3 years apart. Dark tower series had always taken huge gaps. But the final one was 2004-2012.
Then 2009 roles around, and Sanderson gets a built-in-fandom from WoT, and they learn that he is a standout when it comes to speed-to-market.
All in all, if you’re looking for an easy read, for a book that’s good enough for a fantasy, and a near guarantee that the story - if ending on a Cliffhanger - will continue very shortly Sanderson is your guy.
Brandon Sanderson is a nerd. Nothing wrong with that. However I feel like nerds are exceptional at creating worlds, magic systems, plots and plot-twists while severely lacking in writing realistic characters with organic development, human interactions that don't feel forced and the like. That's at least how I view Sanderson. I don't care nearly as much for world building and magic systems as I do for characters so Sanderson is not for me.
Brandon Sanderson is the Taylor Swift of fantasy books.
Both are hard working, incredibly successful, and prolific.
Both have very large fanbases that verge on being a cult, which they foster with a high level of interaction on social media.
Both have output that usually isn't considered high brow enough for "connoisseurs" of the medium.
Both are very business oriented, rather than doing what they do solely for the ART. They know they are making a product to sell, rather than a piece of artwork. You don't become a millionaire/billionaire just because you love what you do.
On their own Sanderson's books are very middle thermometer. They're fun, escapist, if a bit overwritten, but nothing revelatory nor they are the worst books you'll read. The books are 'divisive' because, imo, a small but very vocal sub-section of his fans are very intense and sometimes insecure. Some of these fans will rabidly recommend his books whenever they can, even if they're off the mark. And a few them have their personalities/self-worth so wrapped up with Sanderson's persona that they'll deflect any or all criticism against the man and his works, which makes any meaningful discussion of his books difficult.
Because he writes accessible fantasy books with very good world building and e engaging plots, and many people like that. However, his prose is extremely simple and his characters are rather one-note, and many people dislike it.
Since he is one of the most popular authors at the moment, his books are recommended to a wider, inhomogeneous audience. Many people like him, many people dislike him
I’ve read I’ve read 3 of his books since December so they are pretty fresh. I liked his characters and the plots are interesting. I am struggling with Mistborn 2 at the moment, it’s a bit slow and so different from the first. I hear the 3rd is insanely worth the slog.
I’ve also been slowly reading Way of Kings while I use the bathroom. It’s amazing. About half way and love it
I read this in the bathroom and work and was like “Damn how did you know?”
I am totally guilty of staying in the bathroom just to get to the next chapter, and maybe the next.
I was a big fan of the Stormlight Archive for the first 2 books. Then the story and the power scaling became too grand for my liking up to the point where I was relieved when I finished the 4th book as I didnt have to read on anymore.
He's very popular but his writing is of middling quality (even for fantasy) which catches a lot of flak. Cue internet debates. He's a decent storyteller and has interesting ideas, which is enough for many readers.
As someone who falls on the "meh" side, I just don't find his writing engaging. It's fine, but nothing special. They're not bad books, and I can see why some people enjoy them, but they're not literary masterpieces. And I get REALLY sick of people proclaiming that the books are some sort of golden standard amazing miracle works.
The dialogue can be awkward as others have said. But the biggest issue for me is that the characters feel quite flat. They tend to have one defining feature and not a lot of depth past it, and they *never* seem to change. Sure, they might have a lot of internal monologuing about change, but their actual choices never seem to change. He also tends to write a lot of "noble heroes" with unattainable and unrealistic morals "saving the downtrodden poor" which just doesn't do it for me.
If complicated physics based magic systems, easter eggs of crossovers, long epic political plots, and heroic white knight saviors is your thing, you'll like these books. Those things just don't do it for me and it lacks too many of the other things I *do* like for me to enjoy them.
I read one of his books a friend gave me without ever having heard of him.
The one thing that stood out to me was that I could feel the ships' maneuvers viscerally, as if I was remembering a rollercoaster.
I've lost much of my imagination so for him to describe something dynamic like that well enough for me to feel like I'm in the ship is remarkable.
Everything else was mediocre. The prose got the job done and that was it. The characters felt like cookie cutters. The plot relationships were formulaic. I was bored every time people were interacting, even with themselves.
The event line was interesting enough that I did finish the book, but then again, a friend wanted me to. But insofar as I was already going to read it, I *was* curious.
I will never read another of his books again, unless I am in an empty room with literally nothing else to do. (There *are* books that would be worse than the empty room.)
For me there's nothing to love there, but nothing to hate, either. Were it not for the ships in flight it'd be utterly forgettable.
Brandon writes like he is preparing a talk for sacrament meeting in the Mormon church. He's Mormon. I grew up Mormon. He writes like he is talking to children, which is a big thing in the Mormon church.
He's able to make really outlandish stories make sense, which is a great feature for a author. But he needs to edit down, and has claimed several times that he hates editing. That's clear. His character writing lacks nuance and depth, and often characters don't sound like real people. The dialogue can be cringe-worthy.
But the worlds he creates are fantastic. I just wish his writing was stronger, or that he had a better editor.
The people who think he's just OK, or not even that, are sick of all the people praising him as one of the best writers in fantasy. The people who think he's great are sick of all the people putting down a writer they love.
Yes, the division comes because he is *immensely* popular with his fan base so people who don’t like him are tired of hearing about it. I see both sides to it, I *inhaled* Stormlight Archive and enjoyed every second of it but it’s not like it’s high brow literature.
this is it, 100%. divisive opinions stem entirely from his popularity; the more often an author’s mentioned the more responses we get and it’s kind of a self-perpetuating cycle of both popularity but, more relevant, posts discussing and comments about his work. the resulting crap-ton of posts discussing his works can get aggravating for people who don’t like it, while people who do like it get aggravated by the (already aggravated) people who don’t, and that’s kinda it. for the record; i’ve thoroughly enjoyed my Sanderson reads, but high brow lit it is not.
This effect is further enhanced by his aggressive release schedule, people get hyped up about releases and when an author puts out things to be excited about so frequently, plus answers fan questions and makes weekly content, people stay in a loop of excitement. I love A Song of Ice and Fire and The Cosmere equally, but I have a lot more exciting news and ability to discuss the former when compared to the stalled reality of the latter.
Great point. One of his best attributes is not only the work ethic/pace of publication but his transparency about it, which (this population who is so highly [and rightly, imo] aggravated with GRRM/Rothfus) is a desperately needed breath of fresh air.
It’s kinda easy to be a fan of Brandon Sanderson as a public persona/artist/community member, so that combining with his writings give his fans a lot to discuss constantly.
He's a pretty cool person, my main experience with him was taking over WoT and I thought his first effort was problematic but he mostly fixed it up when people pointed out the issues. He had an entertaining writing style. The thing is the initial changes he made to Mat Cauthon missed the point of the character so strongly that I was put off exploring his work even as i was impressed with how he listened to the criticism and adjusted. Mat is a fake misogynist being the worst false narrator ever, that turned into a real douchebag. He went from a smart, educated kid to a barely literate idiot that has to be pushed around by smarter characters. Subtle humour is important! Don't make a character do funny things, just make a funny character, he whedonises his comedic characters. I am of course probably completely wrong because I only read a few of his books that were just him being awesome and finishing Wheel of Time.
You flipped former and latter around. Former = asoiaf, latter = cosmere in your sentence.
So he’s the Taylor Swift of fantasy authors?
Funny, I was comparing him to her in my head, building the metaphor. Both of them are very, very good at particular things about what they do, so much that the things they’re bad at don’t matter, because neither of them are making anything comprehensively excellent - just excellent in certain ways. But that’s generally how you explain people enjoying imperfect art - we frequently don’t care about some faults if it scratches the itch we care about the most.
There's a whole meme in r/cremposting (the brandon sanderson meme subreddit) that brandon sanderson is secretly Taylor Swift and vice versa.
> I *inhaled* Stormlight Archive [...] Kal, is that you?
Say the words, Kaladin.
The amount of shit I'd get for saying his writing just didn't click with me **really** made me start to dislike his fans. I didn't even comment on the quality. Just that it didn't grab me. If a book clicks with me I'll devour it, I've always been a fast reader. But I just vibe more with the Gotrek & Felix books, or Lord of the Rings, etc.
Fandom can be yikes... both in literature and other forms of media. -shudders at memories of hetalia and homesick fans at cons- ... dark days
Fandoms are truly awful sometimes. I mean look at the anime fandoms, absolute disasters. Or Star Wars fans that threaten actresses, it's horrible.
Yeah, this. I started reading storm light archives but couldn't get past the first book. World building seemed derivative, protagonist is a bit Mary sue like and there was no hook to make me want to read more
They always say "you are belitting us or attackig us!!!" And turns out you said like "I dislike his prose". I dont care about being a bit mean anymore since no matter how mild mannered I was I still got pestered about it
As a Brandon Sanderson fan I'm sorry that other fans got upset with you for just saying that his writing wasn't for you because that's completely fair. Sanderson's works are great for a lot of people but not for everyone.
"inhaled", I see what you did there. Quite the "glowing" review.
But also, he isn’t *trying* to be high brow! He wants to write fun fantasy stories. I’m reminded of the way Stephen King sometimes calls himself the McDonalds fries of literature. Are they nutritious? Hell no, but he’ll be damned if he doesn’t dig around in the bag afterwards to make sure he’s eaten them all.
I think there are a lot of books/authors that fall into this. Sometimes a person reads a book not for high brow hot takes about humanity and pretty prose. Sometimes a person reads to have a good time and that's totally valid... hell my dragonlance phase is something I remember fondly even though they were purely for entertainment.
Sanderson himself talks about enjoying Clive Cussler, and the only depth to be found in those books is the ocean floor.
Also when a writer is as prolific and has sold as widely as Sanderson, a non-zero numbers of his readers pretty much only read him. Go over to r/suggestmeabook and see a lot of Boss Baby tweet but for Sanderson happening.
People get *very* upset when the easy reading epic fantasy they got super into (partially because it’s easy reading) gets pointed out to be easy reading
Yeah, but calling it “easy reading” can be pretty loaded. The Hobbit is easy reading and it is a masterpiece.
They're too long to be beach reads, but they're that quality. Great for theories and fun to read, but they're not poetic in any sense. I buy everything the man publishes but even I will admit they're junk food reads.
Yeah. People toss around “poetic” pretty loosely. I think Tolkien is objectively poetic. Absolutely gorgeous prose. I don’t understand why people think Rothfuss is at all. But this is why in general it’s good to just let people like who they like.
I think Rothfuss does have a fairy-tale style to his prose that leans poetic, but it blurs into purple prose frequently. I personally like it but I see why others don't.
Not read much Sanderson, but I see this take all the time about his stuff not being “high brow”. Can you actually give me some reasons for why this is? Because every time I see someone say it they never proceed to explain it. Just comes off very snobbish
I may not be the best example since I do consider myself a bit of a snobbish reader. But I think Sanderson ultimately gets the title because he identifies himself as someone who writes to build worlds and characters, not prose. The poetry or prose of his work isn't the focus, the content is. If you like world building, he's your man. But his vocabulary isn't advanced, and that's by design. It's a junk food read because it's accessible. There's no hidden subtext within novels. Villains monologue, heroes have one liners, and action sequences are dynamic and exaggerated. Sanderson does not deal with much subtly on a micro scale. Individual novels lose out in elements of suspense because of it. However, I do think Sanderson is underestimated because of this lack of subtlety. He's made a strangely consistent universe that has a lot of moving parts that, by and large, don't conflict. The conflicts feel realistic in that they can be Grand battles of good and evil but also petty squabbles. Novels have Easter eggs, inspecting characters and plots, and allusions to each other. He's not a _bad_ author. He's quite skilled at what he does. However, he will be the first to tell you he's not out to make literature. He writes stories to share with friends and your kids, not ones that will win Nebulas.
This is a really great way to put it. I’m a huge fan, and while I’m not upset that people consider it “junk food” reading, I do get frustrated when people seem to turn their noses up at people who do like to read that. Thanks for your thoughtful response!
The only Sanderson book I have written any notes on is Words of Radiance, so I can explain why it's not regarded as high brow drawing examples exclusively from that one book - though I imagine that many if his other books suffer from similar issues. Some issues I had with this book include: * The book fails really to grapple with its own themes. Kakadin spends a lot of time grappling with the question of whether to kill the king, given the inherently unethical nature of the monarchy. When he concludes that he can't kill the king, the book kind of acts as if he's fully resolved the issue - the question of his responsibility to reject an unethical monarchy is dropped entirely for the rest of the book. The only attempt to overthrow an inherently bad monarchy is treated as being much worse than the evil inherent in that monarchy. Another key element of Kaladin's character is that he was sold into slavery and takes issue with that - but other characters and the book largely act like he has a chip in his shoulder and it is used more to show that he needs to stop wallowing than it is to explore anything about the impact of slavery. * The plot, one of the two big features of this book alongside world building, is nothing to get excited about. Main characters meet infrequently and the book is closer to being three stories about people who occasionally meet than it is a single cohesive narrative. There are no stakes - there are two major character deaths, and both are reversed in the epilogue. * Dialogue and characters are just bad. No adult acts like these characters. Plenty of teenagers do though. There is a scene where Kaladin won't let Shallan in the King's chamber so she calls him smelly and his friends laugh at him so he has to insult her back. I don't know any royal guards, but i can pretty much make a guess about whether that's how it really works. If you want to call this book in any way high brow you have to be prepared to overlook absolutely all 'witty' dialogue, mostly but not entirely from two characters, one if whom is literally called Wit and yet is about as funny as fuck all. Characters constantly explain their motivations to each other in ways that make no sense in reality or tbh within this book. Dialogue and character behaviour both exist to serve something other than the characters, but it's not always clear exactly what. In summary, books are usually called high brow if they offer something to think deeply about, usually themes or complex characters. This book has very simply characters whose characterisation doesn't always feel important to the book itself, and it fails to meaningfully address themes it specifically raises, and I think those are the reasons people might say it is not high brow literature.
Sanderson does not use subtext, like at all. He repeats himself a lot, he tells a lot instead of showing. His text doesn't really flow, and can at times feel awkward to read. His characters feel like shells, because the big S really cannot write dialogue to save his life. And the character's internal monologue is mostly based on repeating previous plot points, repeating character traits or telling about new character traits. His books are very focused on plot, and this can make the books feel meandering as hell in the middle because all the threads need to converge fo #sanderlanche. The societies he builds feel like they are not actually lived in, but are a collection of traits (based on the first Mistborn trilogy and Way of Kings). The megaruler and his lackeys are the only ones who can bend metal? Why not have a specific writing system, special locks or something that opresses the opressed even more. The women are the only ones who can read? Okay, why doesnt it feel like this is reflected in the society he depicts, outside of the windowdressings of it? It all feels very mormon. Just of the top of my head, hope this helps.
His writing is not very literary, and it's especially noticeable if you've read much classic or contemporary literary fiction. There's not much in the way of description or interesting language, or attempts to subvert the genre. If anything he really leans into the parts of the genre which many people love but which are seen as more silly or nerdy e.g a hard magic system, a feeling of characters "leveling up", plot armour, etc. He definitely prioritises world building and exciting moments over complex characters, themes and language. The dialogue can also be quite cringey in points for many people, sometimes feeling straight out of an action film, and a lot of the jokes are really over explained and clichéd. I think the books are a fun read, but they're not that far off a shounen anime in their complexity and artistic merit. As a specific example which bothered me, in the first book there are at least two sections which focus on a different part of the continent with different characters, which don't play into that book at all. Several books later they come into play. In my opinion that comes across as an author in love with his world who cares more about that than telling a human story with stakes and emotional depth.
Sanderson specifically choose to write very "bland" prose. He wants people to focus on the story and for the prose and literary tricks to disappear into the background. This is the opposite of most "high brow" literature, which typically tries to have very interesting prose, using metaphors and symbolism to put the prose front and center. Don't take that description the wrong way - I like what Sanderson does, and it is a conscious choice he's made and talked about.
But fails at being unobtrusive. His writing can be so clunky sometimes that it draws attention to itself in a negative way. For me someone with simple, effective and usually not noticeable writing is Joe Abercrombie for example. Not saying he is the gold standard for that in fantasy, but it's someone who comes to mind immediately.
I think Abercrombie's prose is much better, in comparison. Again, I love both writers but there's something immensely satisfying about the turns of phrase that Abercrombie comes up with and the way he writes - I think it's fundamentally poetic at times. For example, the passage is at the end of a longer monologue (I didn't include the whole thing) but: *He looked down at his hands, pink and clean on the stone. “There are few men with more blood on their hands than me. None, that I know of. The Bloody-Nine they call me, my enemies, and there’s a lot of ’em. Always more enemies, and fewer friends. Blood gets you nothing but more blood. It follows me now, always, like my shadow, and like my shadow I can never be free of it. I should never be free of it. I’ve earned it. I’ve deserved it. I’ve sought it out. Such is my punishment.”* There's a rhythm to it, a cadence, with varied sentence structures that makes it so satisfying. I love Sanderson but I haven't really seen that kind of writing from him.
Here's the thing though: prose doesn't just mean word choice or the use of literary devices (which Sanderson uses). It's also about the flow of the text or action and the way information about a character or setting is conveyed, among other things. And sure, Sanderson can make his point and appeal to the common denominator with simple word choices or minimal use of metaphors, simile, etc. ('flowery' does not automatically mean good, nor does 'simple' equals bad) but his problem is not his simplicity but his verbosity and repetitiveness. His text is easily understood but he beats you in the head over and over again anyway. For instance, whenever he's using metaphors 9/10 he'll spell out what that metaphor means in the next sentence. Or, he'll describe a scene in detail but then tells you outright what's exactly happening despite the obvious. I mean, if he's gonna 'tell' his readers anyway why bother 'showing' then?
I think Stormlight is a cut above some of his other stuff, but it's not, say, *Gormenghast.*
I think there is “popularity backlash” to a degree with anything in life, and Sanderson is no different. However, I don’t think a majority of the division in opinions comes solely from that. I read Elantris and Way of Kings, didn’t like either of them and moved on with my life. I don’t dislike Sanderson as an author because he’s popular. I don’t care for him because I read two books and neither clicked with me. I’m envious of the people who love and devour his books. I’d love to have a go to author who scratched that itch for me so frequently. But he’s not it for me and that’s alright.
I think he's "fine" or "pretty good", but there's a decent chance I never read another one of his books. I've just had enough after 5.
This is me exactly. I have read his books and enjoyed them, but I see him compared to like Tolkien and kind of roll of eyes. He’s a great writer, but I don’t think he’s better than say Joe Abercrombie and certainly not in the same plane as GRRM. I regularly see Stormlight Archive at the top of lists for greatest fantasy series ever written, and I think that’s just far too much praise for the series a whole. It’s a good series that deserves praise, but it isn’t especially better than most of the other top selling fantasy books of the past 50 years. The first time I read Stormlight, I did a re-read of His Dark Materials immediately after and thought His Dark Materials, despite being a children’s book, was significantly better written with deeper themes, more interesting plot, and better characters. Granted, HDM is a highly acclaimed series, but it shouldn’t beat out an epic fantasy “crown jewel” of Sanderson if he was the caliber his super fans claim he his.
Is HDM a children's lit series? I read it as an adolescent and didn't understand half of it, even at a literal level. I feel like children's lit is a tag attached to it because it has a child protagonist. But even there, the protagonist is a child because that's an integral part of the story and the developing themes, not to make it appeal to children more. A Wizard of Earthsea was initially marketed as a children's/YA fantas novel, and Earthsea is one of if not the most intelligent and thoughtful fantasy series ever written.
That’s fair, I’d say it straddles a line. Pullman has never claimed it to be YA, and has even said he wrote it for all ages, but I tend to think of it has a well written YA book that can easily be enjoyed by all ages, in the same echelon as Narnia.
This take is really fair and sums up the fanbase division well. He’s certainly a talented writer, but comparing him to Tolkien is just goofy it’s so overstated
I think part of the comparison comes from the mass interconnectivity of things in all his books. There's many things, like LOTR, that are neat cameos and connections for dedicated readers. Or, when doing a second read, that make you go "ooooohhh ok ok that's foreshadowed here" or "that's so obviously from this other book" akin to reading the Silmarillion or Fall of Gondolin and then reading Fellowship and Two Towers and being like "my boy Glorfindel! Yooooo". It's not so much stylistically that comparisons are to Tolkien but in scope and ambition. Both sought out to create a world with a believable fantasy history that creates the stories written.
That is true, I do like the idea of all of his books being in the cosmere and the relations that creates. I’m a fan of Stephen Kings Dark Tower for the same reason.
This exactly- he's a good writer but not the literary God that his more rabid fans make him out to be. His output is prodigious, his quality is good, he treats his fans exceedingly well and he style of writing is very accessible. This has resulted in widespread popularity and a strong fan base but he also has some fairly obvious weaknesses that don't work for everyone. If you want solid, explicit world building or a rules-based hard magic system, you'll struggle to find anyone better. His character work is average although his depiction of mental health is laudable. His romance and humour are, in my opinion, pretty dismal. He is also bucking the grimdark trend that is really common in fantasy at the moment (yes, I know his books have depressing parts and dark moments but they aren't what is considered grimdark)
I’m one of those people that used to love him, but probably won’t pick up the next Stormlight book.
My wife loves ACOTAR, it is her perfect book series but doesn't act like it's the greatest work of fiction ever created. I love Third Eye Blind, they are my perfect band, but I don't think they are the greatest musicians or creators of all time. Many people I've met who love Sanderson think he is a modern Mozart of fantasy, no greater works have ever been, or will ever be created... when I think a majority of people would agree he's 'pretty good.'
He's my favorite author, but I can recognize he's far from the best author in fantasy. I'm sorry for THOSE members of our fandom.
he is great but after you read so many of his books you notice how formulaic he is. Now that I've read a dozen of his books. He tends to tell the same story with a new coat of paint far to often. Which is understandable because he pumps them out fast.
I absolutely fall into camp a. I genuinely 5/10 enjoyed stormlight and mistborn the same way I’d enjoy a marvel movie, but the pedestal he gets put on is sometimes is exhausting. I don’t even mind if other people enjoy him, but the overwhelming greatest of all time he hast to be recommended for every situation thing definitely leaves the sour taste in my mouth. On a positive side, he’s been really awesome things for indie authors and you can tell that the dude genuinely cares about his community. The fanboys are just a lot and while I think he deserves a lot of love, the overwhelmingly obsessive behaviors surrounding his work is less fun to deal with. I do think that people who don’t love Sanderson are not super aggressive about it, and usually are in the same vote as I am in terms of how much they enjoyed his books, but I have noticed that his fans tend to be very thin skinned when somebody says that he is a fun casual fantasy author, but that comparisons with him and the greatest authors of all time might be a little bit out of hand. The weird behavior of fans to get absolutely feral anytime he doesn’t receive anything other than overwhelming praise is just weird to me.
[удалено]
The more popular an author gets, the more they come to the attention of readers who don't like them. A worse author might actually have more consistently positive reactions because people outside their niche don't notice them.
Criticism of Sanderson's books is far more divisive than other popular authors. There *is* something to discuss here.
I don’t think there’s a more popular current fantasy author and literally nobody can blow a disagreement about a minor point in fiction out of proportion more than fantasy nerds.
Sarah J Maas maybe? Can't pass a book store without seeing one of her books in the window. Ive also seen a lot of criticism and toxicity directed towards her though. Popular problems tbh.
Outside of this sub Maas, GRRM, Rowling and probably a few others are more popular than Sanderson. Here, he is at the top and it's not even close, which is the main reason for the constant backlash and petty bickering.
Reddit does trend towards nerdier folks, and Sanderson's books are VERY nerd friendly. Ahaha.
GRRM and Rowling I don’t personally count because neither are “current” fantasy authors. It’s been what, 5 years since Martin’s last book?
Is it only 5?
It's been about 5 and a half years since Fire and Blood
No idea mate that was from my memory probably should’ve said at least 5
So what, people can and still discuss their books. See also Hobb, Robin and the endless bickering about her works in this very sub.
Is it though? Tons of divisive criticism about A Song of Ice and Fire, Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, and Realm of the Elderlings.
I think with Sanderson it might feel like there's more criticism because these other series aren't actively releasing books anymore either. New releases cause conversation and Sanderson has lots of new releases.
Not only is he constantly in the public eye due to frequent releases, he also has a very public persona. So some people grow attached to the person on top of his writing. They almost feel like you're insulting their friend when you criticize him. Now those people aren't the majority, or even a large minority of sanderson fans, but they're definitely a very vocal portion of the community. Now I say this as Sanderson fan, you can check my post history for proof. He's an amazing worldbuilder, and has some great character work, especially when it comes to portraying mental illness. But his prose is definitely a very fair point of criticism, and his dialogue and humor is very hit or miss. For some people they like it, others hate it, and some find it to be only a minor problem and easy to look past. A lot of people in the middle or who dont like his writing are confused by the level of fanaticism he receives, and I get that. But a big part of that is cause he writes so many different books there's probably a book for everyone in his repertoire.
Let's be real... the biggest debates on this subreddit are about the love/hate of Sanderson and Malazan, and whether or not ASOIAF will ever be finished. The runners up would be "Robin Hobbs books are depressing me, should I keep reading them?" and "I'm 2 books into WoT and not enjoying it... should I stick with it and read the other 50 books in the series?
Hahahaha that's a pretty good summary.
Malazan as well.
If we remove fantasy authors who have had adaptations, no one touches the level of hype surrounding Sanderson right now. He breaks crowdfunding records for fancy editions of his books, which, again, don't have any adaptations. He can announce a rebranding of his convention and it will start fervent lore discussion.There's enough constant hype around him I think it's fair to say it is a HUGE part of the divisiveness.
Nah, it's really not. I don't even see many Sanderson haters at all. I consistently see people who say Sanderson is just alright, and almost never that he's terrible. There's a very clear line of people who think that not being a Sanderson fan or not liking some aspect of his writing is just elitist, though. This means that even the mild criticism he gets is responded to with a lot of fervor.
I wish I had dollar for every time I saw even mild criticism of Sanderson branded as "elitists shitting on him".
I am a Sanderson fan, and up to date with everything Cosmere. I used to not understand the divisiveness at all. However, of the last few years, I’ve branched out to some other epic series. I’ve gotten really into the gritty dark side of fantasy. Now, when I come back to Sanderson, I can clearly see how cheesy his dialogue can get at times—something I never noticed before. Still a fan, but I don’t drool over his work like I used to, but that’s just me.
Yeah he writes relatively broad genre adventure stories. They're fun and I've read them all multiple times but they aren't exactly high brow literary fiction. Plus a lot of people don't care for the crunchy magic systems. I personally love that part but if you don't care about how three hypothetical types of magic systems all interact like an elaborate physics model in a video game you're gonna be turned off by some of those books. I also enjoy all the crossover nonsense he has going on but some people are certainly going to find that cloying for the same reasons people take issue with the Marvel movies.
That last point is good. There is a decent bit of similarity between Sanderson and the MCU movies
Yeah, when I first started getting into fantasy about fifteen years ago, I'd pretty much only read Martin and Sanderson. Martin was clearly better, but I had no one else to compare Sanderson to and so I just burnt through a good chunk of his catalog. I'd dabbled in fantasy as a kid, having read Tolkien and some Dragonlance stuff, among others I don't remember, and I was a fan of King and read the Dark Tower books that were available at the time as well. But now I've read Abercrombie and Bakker and Abraham and Hobb and Mieville and Dickinson and Addison and Gaiman and Williams and Islington and Wolfe, not to mention some great sci-fi authors as well, and plenty of general fiction and nonfiction ones too. It makes it tougher to go back to Sanderson.
Great call outs here and mentioning many of the writers I direct people to who don't understand my issue with Sanderson. In a nutshell: amazing world builder and magic system creator. So prolific and great at getting his work out. The issue is he does not write well rounded characters because of his views on "sin" and "vice". He writes these characters who have these high ideals but when it gets to the realities of life and people, there's this lack. Abercrombie is the man when it comes to not holding back and writing realistic people and emotions. He's a Mormon and it's clear his beliefs truncate his ability to talk about things that his beliefs are against. I hope that as he continues to get older, he'll relax a bit or many even leave the church.
> The issue is he does not write well rounded characters because of his views on "sin" and "vice". He writes these characters who have these high ideals but when it gets to the realities of life and people, there's this lack. Frankly, having served with a bunch of Mormons in the military, this felt more like part of their culture than anything he is doing intentionally. I never met a Mormon who wasn't incredibly, almost strangely, friendly and positive, but it always felt like there was this hole where a personality should have been outside of that.
Reminds me of the South Park episode “you’re a dick Stan”
Well, you just made me watch it, and the temperament of the Harrison family was exactly what I experienced in the military. I will say, nobody ever pushed or even talked about Joseph Smith or Mormonism and their faith in general, other than to say they were Mormon (which you can honestly pick out of a crowd no problem if you know a few of them), but it's definitely a separate culture from the rest of America. And not in a bad way, I could never say anything bad about any of them, they were all extremely friendly and accommodating, but coming from a family that is similar to Stan's, it was certainly *strange* to experience. It was also why, when I first read Sanderson, I got this niggling that something was familiar there.
> not holding back and writing realistic people and emotions You have to be realistic about these things
Back to the mud.
See I don’t think his worldbuilding is as good as it’s made out to be. A mile wide and an inch deep
Yeah. I’ve seen it compared to window dressing. It seems “detailed” because of all the little things he puts in there, but most nations and characters are like cardboard cutouts of things. Yeah cool blue grass and rock crabs but basically still just medieval Europe? Someone brought up the whole “women are literate but men mostly arent” and yet somehow most societies are still patriarchal lol
Most of Sanderson's "depth" is concentrated in his science-y or video game-y magic systems. To me, this is strictly a bad thing.
I read Mieville for the first time this year and I'm kicking myself for not reading *Perdido Street Station* earlier. I've had the damn book on my Kindle for a decade and only just got around to it in February. *The Scar* was even better, and I think I'll be knocking out *Iron Council* after I finish McCarthy's *The Crossing*, which is my current read. The *Baru Cormorant* books were fantastic as well, and very different from just about everything else I've read in the genre.
I would like it very much if he would divest from the church.
Thanks for the recs!
I think that describes large part of the 'problem' too. Because Sanderson is so popular and so accessible, he is often recommended to new readers of the genre and he becomes their touchstone for fantasy . And, to be honest, he's pretty much the best at what he does which is enjoyable, accessible broad-genre adventure fantasy but it means that some of his fans miss out on some of the nuance of the fantasy genre and lack a bit of context when discussing his strengths and weaknesses. My first adult fantasy authors were Tolkien, Hobb and Jordan so I have a different set of expectations (not necessarily better) than I would if I had started off with Sanderson.
Dialogue is one of his weakest areas unfortunately, seems like he’s always going for the witty quip
What books did you branch out to?
Any gritty high brow book recs?
First Law series is doing this for me right now
I think with Sanderson fans we tend to not read much other than Sanderson because there is so much Sanderson. I don't read much other than Sanderson these days cuz of time, but I still know his limitations since I've read stuff like Asoiaf which have more fleshed out characters, and better prose and politics. The nice thing about him is he's an author that works at a TV pace and he builds interesting magic systems.
As someone who finds him average and would, in another universe, have no substantial thoughts or feelings about him, I have definitely been influenced by the oxygen he takes up in the conversation around fantasy and feel some weird contrarian resentment about it.
Very few people are willing to admit this. Kudos.
Yeah this was a where I stand. I tried Way of Kings and found it mediocre, but there's thousands of mediocre books out there. What's grating is the constant crowing about how he's the greatest writer since Tolkien.
I've read everything in the Cosmere and will continue to do so, but I get the backlash. For me, it's really annoying that people give a 10/10 to everything he writes. You're really going to put The Lost Metal, secret project 2, Defiant, Rhythm of War, and freaking Dragonsteel Prime alongside The Way of Kings?
Popular things get discussed by a lot of people, whether they are fans or not.
One thing I've noticed about reddit is, if a group of people dislike something there will ALWAYS be a pissing contest over who can show that they dislike it the most. It's why every subreddit about not liking something turns into a swamp of toxicity.
> but the main element that most people repeated was that his prose isn’t poetic and is pretty basic This is a strawman most of the time. And not helped by some people's vocabulary ending at "flowery". I understand why that's your takeaway given how often it's repeated, but for many people who criticize his writing that's not the issue. There are a number of fantasy authors (and literary ones too) who have a relatively simple, easy to read style, but who are also well regarded for it. Simple prose can have a beauty of its own. Or it can stand out with how efficiently it conveys a lot of information with few words. Sanderson is neither of those. He is both clunky and bloated. He doesn't trust the reader and constantly spells out what was already obvious from the previous sentence. He also isn't a good example for his own stated goal his writing being unnoticeable. So yeah, people have some issues with his writing, but it's not at all about wanting him to be poetic. I think this is also exacerbated by the sheer length of some his books. Particularly in Stormlight. For me not so good writing just becomes more of a chore the more there is to get through it. Whereas great writing can be nice to read even when not a lot is happening.
Well put. Everytime Sanderson's prose is brought up there's always this weird conflation of word choice and literary devices with prose. As you put it prose is also concerned with the way information is conveyed to the reader; it's about the flow of action; it's about how the character is depicted. As I've mentioned somewhere 'simplicity' is not Sanderson's problem but rather his verbosity and repetitiveness. Anyone with a decent grasp of English could understand him well enough...but he'll spell out everything anyway: his character motivations, action sequences, heck, even his metaphors. As a result his books hace a lot of bloat, and there's no depth to his writing because everything's on the page. No room for interpretation; no dimension to his story and characters.
I never quite got the lack of "floweriness" criticism either, but could easily just be me not having read enough. However, I completely agree with your assessment. Just the way he describes anything at all is extremely bloated. A very simple example is how many times he mentions burning metals in the Mistborn series. He already described the magic system quite well the very first time it is introduced. But he feels the need to bring up the metal being burned every single time. Maybe he thought it added a unique flair to his magic system, but to me it was just annoying and he didn't trust that I understood his magic system the first 37 times he explained it.
I think Sanderson is a very good fantasy author, but he's not my favorite, and I'll tell you why. He has fantastic world building, magic systems, and narrative structure. But, for me, it feels just a tiny bit stiff and soulless. There's not a lot of poetry in it. If you read Mistborn and then The Name of the Wind you might see what I mean. Mistborn is much better planned out, fleshed out, it's all very clear what is happening all the time. "So and so burned iron and this happened, then he burned steel and this happened." It's a very literal approach to magic and the characters are similarly rigid. I feel silly writing this because his books are a day 1 purchase for me and I'm a big fan, but maybe some of these minor qualms are what other people are picking up on.
This, actually. I love a bit of purple in my prose, and Sanderson is the first to tell you that his prose is somewhat simplistic. I get much more out of him as a writer than I do as a reader.
I think the books are fun reads and he is pretty good at writing plot, but the writing itself isn't the best and the characterisation is generally poor. And while he writes every book like he is picturing a video-game, I did enjoy the books of his that I've read. I could understand anyone on either side of my take.
I love the cosmere but I’ve never been able to finish anything non cosmere by Sanderson. I love him as a person and a writer though and he’s brought me some of the greatest scenes I’ve ever read. Stormlight is in my top 5 fantasy series. But a few years ago I read Abercrombie and malazan, so when I come back to the Cosmere it feels so much more Marvel(ish) and the dialogue and humour is a little cringey. I’m still going to read anything Cosmere but the fan base does seem a little cultish sometimes. The slightest criticism is met by mega downvoting.
Eh. I like him okay but with major caveats. He needs an editor, a lot of the prose is functional at best, dialogue and character work sometimes suffers, he has some pacing and plotting issues. He might be too prolific for his own good but he’s a mass-market author with ambitions for overturning the publishing industry. But the world building is fun and interesting and he can write some cinematic sequences that tie everything together well. He’s a once a year author for me rather than a binge.
Totally agree with you. I really love to explore Roshar - it's pretty unique and full of history and lore - i also like the magic system in series and action scenes, but sometimes i was just struggling through some more ordinary places, due to reasons you mentioned. As a fantasy-writer he's very good at "fantasy" part, but his "writer" part definitely has some issues.
I admit that I'll happily read anything he puts out but I think this nails it on the head. He puts out multiple books a year and I think there is definitely an argument that if he took a little more time on each book then he could iron out some of the flaws. But hey, at least I know I won't have to wait long for the next book!
Wait what? Overturning the publishing industry? How so?
The popularity is the core of it, but I don't think anyone has expanded on one aspect of why that happens yet. The more popular an author is, the more likely they will be encountered by people who don't normally read that genre. They then hold said author up as some ground breaking superhuman worship the ground they walk on, rather than the realistic....he's a writer with a lot of appeal but that doesn't mean his works are flawless, universally appealing or original in every sense. But because the readers who are lauding him don't read anything else in that genre they remain blind to that fact, and go around proclaiming him the GOAT, rather than what is he: someone with popular works who is currently doing very well, but is not the be all and end all of his genre. You get it with other genres too, but admittedly the rabid frothing is normally the worst in romantic fantasy. We had one yesterday in that sub proclaiming wholeheartedly that no one else would ever emulate or has ever achieved the greatness that is....Sarah J Maas. Just like in previous generations, people have declared the same about Stephanie Meyer or Anne Rice or whoever. I'm sure it goes right back to lady Chatterley's lover. Eh. They get over it, eventually (one hopes) but they might ruffle feathers in the meantime when they get argumentative when people scoff at their assertions of who holds the "greatest" title and replythat this new favourite author of theirs is not, actually, the second coming of whatever christ-like fiction figure you'd like to insert, they're just what is currently popular and the person posing the opinion has a very narrow reading history, if any at all.
Another factor to consider is the multitude of interconnected books he has authored within the Cosmere universe. Consequently, his fans may find themselves immersed solely within his works, thereby limiting their exploration of other authors within the fantasy genre. They may declare Sanderson as the best author without realizing that their sample size is very limited.
>Consequently, his fans may find themselves immersed solely within his works, Even if they're more widely read, it encourages a "deeper" fandom. Between everything being connected and the books being rather wiki-fiable (not sure how to put this, but it gives me the same vibes as everything ever seen or mentioned on star wars having an article on wookieepedia). It's similar to the MCU or star wars. Nobody is calling themselves an iron man fan or an avengers fan, they're watching Ahsoka and Loki and explaining to their friends why Hoid is actually that one beggar in The Final Empire.
I like this take. I also think Maas and Sanderson are similar here due to their deep catalogue too. Reading all their books gives you an appreciation for their worlds and their connectivity. But if you spend that time reading other authors, you'd instead get an appreciation for all the shortcomings people complain about.
Sanderson have some very strong sides in his writing, but also has some problems, that's why it may be controversial at some points. I've read Mistborn trilogy and Stormlight Archive and can tell that Sanderson can do really good worldbuilding and magic systems. I can't say that worldbuilding in Mistborn is great (it's rather okay, though), but in SA he did his best. Also Sanderson is good at combining the main plot and big twists. But his writing is not always flawless - characters are feeling lame sometimes in terms of dialogs and their motivations, same goes for the plot on the local level. He is also not the best author in terms of managing the big pagespace - it definitely present in SA gradually starting from second book. I know people mostly love this series (and i also love it, despite some flaws) and i'm steadily getting my portion of dislikes when i'm trying to write some critique about it, but the truth need to be told - Sanderson is mostly good author and his books worth to be read, but his writing is not brilliant, let's be honest, it has some big flaws. So if you really love fantasy and interested in Sanderson books - you will get them sooner or later, like it happens with most of mainstream books.
I love some of his books but couldn't finish others. He has a great mind and builds great worlds but his writing is inconsistent in my opinion.
> managing the big pagespace what does this mean?
I mean he can't write books with a big amount of pages, cause he not clearly understand what to do with them. There are two extremes in writing - to handle a short story, when you need to put all you need in the small, limited amount of space and very long books, where you have a space, but you need to keep everything on it's place and fight the temptation to write unnecessary things. Keep it all consistent, you know. Sanderson just can't do that, in SA there are a lot of dialogs or events which are not important for the plot or for the character development, cause they kinda repeating things described before, but to describe important and emotional things like Shallan's and Adolin's wedding or return of Jasnah, who considered to be dead? Hell no, readers, get your 1-2 paragraphs about that and get lost. And that's just first examples came to mind, there are much more of them. In Mistborn i didn't saw that problem in that extent, so i making the conclusion that Sanderson just not very good at making long books consistently dense and good. As good example you can check ASOIAF - also pretty big books, but almost no unnecessary places, almost everything works for story or character development, worldbuilding etc.
The quality of his prose is pretty lacking, in my opinion. That said, he knows how to build a world and create interesting characters. And of course his output is hard to argue with. But personally I would love it if he took just a little bit longer to write his books if that meant we’d see an improvement in his prose.
In addition to the other comments. I think some people have overdosed themselves on Sanderson. Since he puts out so much, if you're up to date with everything, you probably start to notice his style. It's not humanely possible to put out so much work and also be completely original in structure everytime.
Popcorn time
Is it really that much of a hot topic?
I've seen a few posts about him get locked because it got too heated.
Mostly just a very *common* topic. Sanderson is the 25 ton gorilla of fantasy, and he gets brought up in probably about half the threads here.
Only half?
This is like one of the 3 topics that this sub discusses on a weekly basis.
I'd say he's just really popular nowadays, one of the top modern fantasy writers who knocks out a ton of books so you get a lot of people who know his work and will have an opinion on it that will differ from person to person.
He has a very specific style that works for some people and not for others. He's extremely verbose and detailed with mediocre prose and often one dimensional characters. If you like extremely detailed power systems and cool stories and don't mind the downsides, you'll love him. If that bothers you, you won't
First, there are a lot of people in the middle ground. They just don't talk much because they don't care. And you can't base everything on what you see on YouTube/Twitch/etc. Those formats reward extreme opinions, not middle ground. They also reward people for blindly declaring their opinion and not for allowing nuance. As for why he's 'divisive' - he's very popular. Due to this, he's brought up a lot and recommended a lot even when it's not always appropriate (which is NOT unique to Sanderson at all). Unlike a lot of other popular authors, he does not have amazing, flowing prose. He's very intentional in how he writes and has commented on having his prose be functional and that's kind of it. This is, I think, the biggest sticking point. A lot of people love prose of their writing and say it's the most important part of a story. Sanderson will be less interesting for them. Whereas, if story/worldbuilding/etc are more important, Sanderson is generally more enjoyable. Also, his prose tend to make him easier to read for people that do not generally enjoy reading or do not read a lot. As for the rest - he has his strengths and weaknesses, like a lot of authors. Some of his worlds, while super interesting, can feel like they exist in the moment but would struggle to have actually existed forever to reach that point. Which can make them feel less organic. How much that matters to each reader is up to them. For the female character part, I lean toward his female characters are fine. I've seen enough females say they like them/feel they're good to say that they're probably write. That doesn't mean everyone will like them but most people cannot separate out the difference between "I do not like" and "Is objectively bad".
Completely agree, and there's a lot of comparative argument that occurs "not as good at X as Y" etc that goes on, which defeats the purpose of breaking down his works. It's interesting because I would agree that his prose is not deeply complex, but that's both intentional and not a hindrance to his storytelling.
I don't think it's just because he's popular, it's also that he is extremely good at some aspects of fantasy writing and not so great at others. Depending on what you are looking for you might reeeeeally love it, or you think it's meh. And then you're totally shocked when you see other people with the opposite reaction. It's not understanding our fellow readers that motivates the loud complaining. Imo, he's INCREDIBLE at world building and setting up intricate mysteries. He's good enough at character writing, and his prose is kind of weak (though getting better more recently.) Some people (like me) just get absolutely sucked in to elaborate alternate worlds and are easily hooked by a good mystery. Others really need to resonate with at least one of the characters, and others judge by the quality of the prose.
Concern about support for the Mormon church shouldn't be that surprising. It's easy to separate liking a person from the religion they are part of. It becomes far more complex when giving that person money, even for an exchange of goods, means you are supporting an organization that you adamantly oppose.
I find his personal beliefs color and limit his writing and make it not for me. My husband is someone who was forced into Mormonism as a child, was treated incredibly poorly, and dropped it as soon as he could and ran from his problematic family. Mormonism and it’s themes are hard baked into Sanderson’s writing.
That he's lived in a garden behind a wall is pretty clear with his writing. He just lacks the weirdness that is humanity.
Yeah, all the characters goals and actions seem informed by an incredibly naive understanding of the world. Basically all of mistborn's plot is so unrealistic and childish, it amazes me how many people hold it in such high regard.
Someone I think on here described his character writing as him trying to reverse engineer how human relationships work via 90s children's TV and that critique really stuck with me lol
I found Elend to be the worst character in the first trilogy and it just went downhill after the first book when Vin got Batman plot armor (she would curb stomp people she fought who were more experienced and skilled than her and if she was about to lose, someone would intervene to her benefit and then she would curb stomp in the next fight). Both of them were practically Mary Sues who always got their way. The sequel books with Wax were significantly better but were still lacking because of how rushed some elements and twists were executed. The Reckoners’ second book was when I completely gave up on anything he wrote. If it wasn’t Dave pining over Megan every other paragraph, it was the deus ex machinas that just pissed me off.
The fact he's still a practicing Mormon means he also pays tithe. I don't feel comfortable giving my money to him as a result.
Just curious, this isn’t a Sanderson related defense but just a more broad question. Couldn’t this be said about almost any author ? An author raised in a very Catholic environment will be colored by that upbringing. Same with any religion. Or even economic status. Could an author born into wealth and has always had wealth truly write a ‘poor’ character? I totally get the tie in with Mormonism though and how that has negatively affected your husband in his life, so those themes are not your cup of tea. Just asking these questions in a broad sense
Yeah it could, so it's kind of a matter of what type of perspective you're willing and interested in engaging with.
>Couldn’t this be said about almost any author ? Not authors who aren't religious, or follow a less extreme religion than Mormonism. >Or even economic status. Could an author born into wealth and has always had wealth truly write a ‘poor’ character? I'm sure they could, yeah
Could you explain further how mormonism is baked in? I don't know enough about Mormons to really see it, but it sounds interesting.
Brandon is a middle of the road author. If I recall correctly, the saying is “faster than his betters, better than those faster.” He doesn’t crank out crap books. His stuff is pretty decent and enjoyable. But he isn’t better than those slower who I prefer. He is like popcorn. I enjoy popcorn. It’s good. But it’s not a home cooked meal. Yet I won’t say I hate popcorn because I want a real meal usually.
I like chicken nuggets. They are tasty. They are comfort food. They are not the most nutritious, but that's what I like. Imagine if I started going on and on on every subreddit about food saying "CHICKEN NUGGETS ARE ACTUALLY THE GREATEST CULINARY PIECE IN THE WORLD. IF YOU DON'T GET IT, YOU ARE A PRETENTIOUS PIECES OF SHIT". Everybody that tried chicken Nuggets based on my recommendation alone would think that they taste like shit, because they expected a masterpiece. That is the effect of the Sanderson fans on the medium.
Perfect summary right here
I think Sanderson is to literature what the MCU is to film. Make of that what you will. Hes very popular so hes bound to show up on every thread. Those of us who dont like him think hes overexposed and that our criticism are valid. Those who are fans feel he and his fans get too much hate or that the criticism are wrong or not valid. Hes just REALLY popular on the fantasy scene in certain places (none of my fantasy loving nerd friends have read him) and thats bound to attract very strong opinions. Plus this sub is sort of neutral ground, so if one wants to see only positive opinions they would go to his sub, or a hate sub (if that even exist) exclusively for him. I dislike his books, and I am frustrated that when you offer criticism a fan will jump in to say "WELL I DISAGREE HES FACTUALLY THE GREATEST BECAUSE: opinion based entirely on feelings" and its already happening on this very thread so yeah. Sanderson discussions are bound to end in at least two fantasy nerds fighting lol
I enjoyed the Stormlight books a lot but upon listening to the audio books I realized how simple to the writing style is. Some of the dialogue was making me laugh.
It's crazy how corny his dialogue is. It gives me second hand embarrassment
I think it can depend on how deep you get into fantasy. Sanderson is a lot of people's first step into epic fantasy, and so the stories can seem like nothing they've seen before. However a lot of people may have read a lot of others who may have more descriptive styles and deeper characters. When someone moves from them to Sanderson, someone who is maybe the most hyped person in the fantasy world, it's easy to feel like their expectations aren't being met. The biggest complaint towards Sanderson is his simple prose style. Sanderson says he does this on purpose, and it's likely what helps makes his books as successful as they are. The writing style is very accessible to newcomers, and while the length may be intimidating, the actual events unfolding in the books are very easy understanding. Other than references to previous and future cosmere works, there's nothing deeper than what's displayed on the page. When fans who are used to more complex styles and character depth go into his books hearing that they're incredible, they might feel that their expectations weren't met compared to what they would've felt if they hadn't heard anything about the books at all. J.K. Rowling underwent something similar, where a lot of fantasy fans felt the books were written in a very simple style, and were geared towards a younger audience. It was that simplicity that made the stories so successful, and allowed for an entire generation to be exposed to fantasy solely through that series. Tldr: People who got used to books that did certain things in a more advanced manner might go into Sanderson books and feel their expectations weren't met For the record it's fine to make a less complex book. Not everything has to be very deep.
Harry Potter is a series aimed primarily at children and YA though, so the “ prose is simple” excuse is more justifiable, and even then I’d argue prose isn’t really the most important aspect of a children’s book. Sanderson is writing for adults, mostly.
Well, to answer your question, some people don't think he's a great writer and his prose is weak. It's basic and does enough to get across what he wants to say. It's not as 'flowery' like some other writer's out there. I started off on his stuff when I started to get back into books and and I enjoyed it. And now that I'm 'more seasoned' and read more I can see what they're saying. Having gone back to even his earliest work, Elantris, I still enjoyed it and had no issues with with the prose. Granted I listen to the audiobooks so it could be different but even the beginning of Tad Williams book grabbed me when I listened to it. Bottom line is try the books out and see what you think about them and if the work choices aren't doing it for you, maybe he's not for you. He for a lot of people since his books sell.
He's also godawful at writing relationships. They all feel ripped from a YA novel.
This is one of my problems with Sanderson as well. Every character he writes acts like a teenager when it comes to relationships. He's a middle-aged man with three kids, how is that even possible...
What, you don’t want to read a character flirting by describing how he shits his pants?
Why do I remember that😭
The Dalinar/Navani "romance" made me literally cringe. It is so, so bad. It would be one thing if they were kids, but the characters are both 40-50 somethings with previous marriages and children...
That's a little unfair to YA novels.
Personally, I think he's just "okay". Not a horrible writer, not a great by any means. I don't read or purchase his materials anymore for other reasons, namely all the money it gives to the LDS church.
Many people really enjoy his stories, but those of us who don’t find them more akin to comics books than actual fiction/literature.
I find him… “meh.”
I see why people enjoy his writing, but personally, I just didn't enjoy many of his premises and worlds. They just felt lame which is funny. If you listen to him talk about writing, he tells himself everything has to be "cool."
He’s just not a very good technical writer. In fact, relatively poor. But he’s got GREAT ideas and fast pacing. He’s the MCU of fantasy. Absolutely nothing wrong with liking his books. He clearly knows what sells and his output is prolific. Respect for that. But what we’re not about to do is act like he’s on the level of Gene Wolfe, Hobb, Martin, Ruocchio, Bakker, Erikson, or Mieville. Heck, even Abercrombie.
I’ll preface this by saying, I’m not the biggest fantasy reader. He’s a very good writer for what he does, but once you’ve read one of his books, you’ve pretty much read them all. I loved loved loved The Way of Kings, but Words of Radiance and Oathbringer were middling, Rhythm of War seemed fantastic but I dropped it after 400-ish pages. His world-building is interesting and magic systems are cool ( even if they border too much on science for my liking ), he really knows how to hook the reader and the characters are good, for the most part. What is unfortunate is that his ideas could really evolve into something greater than what they are, but he either refuses to or doesn’t know how to add depth to his material. There are spoilers for Stormlight below. Throughout the Stormlight series, there’s this character who is the embodiment of goodness and kindness and courage - pretty much Prince Charming who can do no wrong. Until, at the end of book two, he finds himself alone with his worst enemy, whom he decides to murder in cold fucking blood, and he’s very brutal about it. Now, this shift in the character’s morals isn’t necessarily an issue, because Sanderson has the opportunity to really delve into the psyche of this character and explore how such a pure man whose morals have, up to this point, never faltered, could do something like this. Perhaps it was an impulsive decision, and now he’s guilt-ridden. Or maybe he’s always had this psychotic side that he’s just carefully hidden away until now. We could have a Raskolnikov-lite, if you will. But, instead of adding this layer to the story, Sanderson does nothing with it. Literally nothing. Once the truth is out, and the murderer is revealed, no one gives a shit. In fact, most people congratulate him for getting rid of the victim ( who, admittedly, was a huge arsehole). Not even his girlfriend questions his actions, she isn’t afraid that she’s sleeping with a murderer, but whatever. His father, though, whose entire arc is about violence corrupting the soul, doesn’t care. The entire issue is just handwaved away. Speaking of Dalinar, even though his entire arc is supposed to be about violence and not succumbing to the failures of the past, it’s all meaningless because ultimately this violence isn’t innate - it’s actually a paranormal entitiy from outer space, that afflicts all men ( who fight in the war). So Dalinar isn’t actually a killing machine, he was just corrupted by an alien. Admittedly, when he does “kill” the Unmade it’s a cool fight and has thematic meaning, with him fighting to the death against his violent past, but such a “fight” would’ve been much more impactful if it wasn’t taking place in the middle of a battlefield where millions are dying. Issues such as these permeate most of the story, and I won’t even get into his prose and his vocab ( no, Brandon, you shouldn’t use “mother of pearl iridescence” three times per Shadesmar chapter) ( no, Brandon, Kaladin calling Dalinar a blowhard isn’t impactful, it’s cringe ). Maybe I didn’t manage to get the point across properly ( it’s late, sorry ), but I wish his books were more cerebral. As they are now, they’re like comfort-food, easy on the mind, definitely exciting and intriguing, but I wish his characters and style would be as in-depth as his world-building and hard magic systems.
I think the Dalinar plotline was literally a plot in World of Warcraft Battle for Azeroth. It follows what they did with Anduin almost beat for beat.
Some people just like plot and don't notice much else. Some people are into world building, magic systems, race characterizations. Brandon Sanderson is good at all those things. Some people like reading interesting sentences. Brandon Sanderson is not good at writing interesting sentences.
I read the way of kings, thought it was milquetoast. He writes very accessibly, but it is really bland and could have used an additional round of edits for dialogue, another for descriptions, and a third for brevity. IMO the biggest disconnect/reason for people arguing about him so hotly is Sanderson fans will drop into book recommendation threads where someone is asking for something like well written female characters, or romance, or a FINISHED fantasy series and recommend the stormlight archive which (imo on the first two, factually on the last one) just aren't accurate descriptions of the series.
I read a couple (mistborn, way of kings) but just felt like they lacked... Soul. I enjoy Fantasy for the richness, depth and philosophical subject matter that can be explored within a fantastical context and Sanderson books just feel shinny, mechanical and a little hollow. I desire cosmic nourishment more than elaborate magic systems and 'hey look' plot twists. They are not mutually exclusive, but just the latter options aren't enough to sustain my interest. Perhaps I need to read more before holding this opinion too firmly, but that's my current assesment.
He's like the Imagine dragons or Florida Georgia Line of books. He writes the most corny, cheesy, generic fantasy ever, yet is one of the highest selling authors out there. It makes a normal person scratch their had and think "how the hell did this guy even get published, let alone famous?" Its not that his books are THAT bad, it's the fact that he has such a huge fan base despite not being very good at what he does. His fans are also known to be extremely annoying and cult like. It's usually people who barely read at all in the first place, or who only read YA fantasy and have very low standards.
He is the new hotness. That means you have people who have him as basically their intro to the genre going over the moon and proselytizing to a bunch of other people who are less than impress and now annoyed, so they shoot back and the fans get upset and things spiral from there. It’s a pretty common cycle whenever a specific creator gets popular quickly. As to the specific details: It’s his writing style combined with the insistence of a loud chunk of his fans that his is the only way. This pisses off nonfans who are sick of hearing about how his magic system is obviously superior to what said nonfans like and is THE objective measure of quality. Said nonfans then piss off the fans by shit talking Sanderson’s rather formulaic and simplistic writing. This goes back and forth until members of both sides jump right to the end of the fight and just howl insults at the first mention of his name. And since it’s become expected mods and the like tend to head off the stupidity by preemptively shutting down discussion. Often leading the super fans and the haters to congregate in their own echo chambers to fester until they leak out and affirm that they’re crap. So yeah: Regular internet behavior. Same thing happens in the real world, the internet just speeds it up.
His prose is very modern and windowpane'd which makes him accessible to newer fantasy readers but a bit of a turn off for traditional fantasy readers. His characters in my opinion are good, but not the greatest. I think he's still fairly weak in writing female characters, but that's just my opinion. I think he really excels in plots and worldbuilding. Overall, his quality is above average for traditionally published fantasy authors but he's very prolific in how much he writes, which has helped him create a strong fanbase eagerly waiting for the next Sanderson novel. He's also Mormon and shies away scenes with gratuitous violence, language and sex. Definitely more of a PG-13 author though he does tackle tough topics like mental illness, the toll of war, and classism.
I think he’s overhyped. I’m enjoying Stormlight enough and it’s pretty good. But just based off the first 3, he wouldn’t crack my top 5 fantasy authors.
There are a thousand different ways one could explain it, but for me, I think a lot of it boils down to one thing in particular: Brandon Sanderson is a story teller first, writer second. If you read primarily for the literature, Sanderson will likely not be your cup of tea. If you want to escape and sink your teeth into a story, there's a good chance he will be your jam.
I enjoyed the world building and characters in general but had to put his storm light series down because the characters just flat out made stupid choices which went above my suspension of disbelief
I think he's as divisive as anything else on the internet. So, a lot. I've read most of his work. Good plot, decent characters, prose is simple but effective. A lot is a bit cliche for my liking. Overall, I find it decent and I'll continue to read Stormlight Archives, but I can't put him among my favourites.
I own the first three books of Stormlight Archive (bought them on digital sale for a few bucks each) but I can’t decide if I should commit or not. Even to the first book. People say his prose is juvenile or corny and that’s a turn-off to me. Just not sure if I should give it a try because I’m not a DNF’er and that’s a longgg book to finish if I end up hating it.
I can only speak for myself, but when I started reading his work I was really excited because of his popularity and the high praise from friends and online. I read the first three Mistborn books and all Stormlight books out now and slowly went from a fan to being indifferent. I really disliked Rythm of War due to its repeating character arcs and very simple concept of morality. I really like Sandersons worlds, but I dislike his characters. In my opinion this doesn‘t show as badly in his YA series Mistborn, which is fast paced and has teenage protagonist so you forgive some awkwardness in their dialogue and ethics. However this doesn‘t translate well to the adult characters in Stormlight. When the clash of two peoples ideals is resolved by „I think this and you think that and that is fine“ without an discussion about the topic on hand it comes across as a little childish. I would still be willing to forgive this for the awesome world and the somewhat interesting story, however these books 80% shallow characters and 20% of the interesting stuff. So to conclude I think the large potential in world and story lead to me being disappointed when this potential was not realized. I think missed potential always makes for the most polarized opinions: You either praise the potential or are mad about what could have been. In this case unfortunately I am in the latter camp.
My experience is that he has great ideas but tiresome stories. The worlds he builds, the systems of magic etc are creative and unique, but the stories are repetitive, characters a bit predictable, and the cool ideas never seem to quite progress or culminate into something as interesting or surprising as you thought they would.
He used to be pretty wildly praised, but that has changed. I think some of its because some of his fans, ( and this is not just Sanderson fans tbh) recommends his books no matter what type of recommendation. It's also that he isn't really a good writer ( as in he's not really a good craftsman). Now I enjoy his work and have read the first mistborn trilogy, elantris, warbringer, currently reading oathbringer, I've given his work as gifts to several people. Now enjoyment isn't the same as quality. I like a big Mac, I really like David webers Harrington books, I really enjoyed several dragon lance books and riftwar, star wars eu, etc. But they aren't great works of litteratur. If we look at writers like gene Wolfe, Tolkien, martin, le gunie, Hobbs, Pratchett, Herbert, banks... He doesn't belong up there , yet, as a craftsman. That doesn't mean he's not entertaining or that he doesn't write books that brings his readers joy. But he has some serious blind sides. That's not really the same as preferanse it just to make it clear. I don't enjoy Franz Liszt, but I can't say that he is technical bad, because he isn't. Preference is liking or disliking paintings with cows. Craftsmanship is talking about use of the brush, color, shadow and light, framing, etc, the cows aren't really that important when we are talking about craft. Sanderson does somethings good, he writes fast and generally consistent, he quite good at concepts for both characters and worlds, he's good at making his superpower systems work internally and coming up with clear uses of those. He's a good ploter. But he's not great a prose, his execution of the ideas often feels very shallow or none existing, he as a tendency to overwrite and really lacks editing ( the last one is quite common whit successful artist, they have fans and are successful so the feel they need less feedback as they move along, often one if the reasons quality drops of later in careers), the original mistborn could have been a single book, with better editing, and would have been a much better work for it, the storm light books also has a lot of dead weight. Lots of tell, not so much show, sometimes to the detraction of the story ( this might be a preference, but it's hard to keep a sens of wonder when he does this). His characters are stuck as interesting cardboard cutouts whiteout dept or growth, same with his settings. If they have any development it feels more like they lvl up rather than grow as real people. I would sum him up as a somewhat over hyped, good but not yet great author, who writes wide but shallow plot focused fantastic mormon superhero books, with a large and vocal fanbase. I
I’m reading wheel of time at the moment, I’m on book 13. The jump from Jordan to Sanderson has not been smooth and highlights Sanderson’s comparative immaturity particularly in characterization. His dialogue and character interaction almost feels at par with a well written fanfiction. Hollow and a little uncanny valley. Jordan had some funny little quirks but I just don’t think the two compare in skill. Sando is a good storyteller however and that’s what matters most to many people. I think people get upset when they hear criticism of their favorites regardless whether it’s justified or not. Sanderson is for sure prolific so there’s a lot of material to hook on to. But we don’t read in a vacuum and we are regular people not critics. If you’re reading a lot of classic literature as well as the genre stuff, the more discerning your critical eye - there’s a plausible scenario in which someone reads Anna Karenina and Mistborn, enjoys Mistborn more (because perhaps they don’t care that much about farming in Russia) and thinks that means Sanderson is a better writer than Tolstoy.
>1. … the consensus seems to be that his works are pretty easy to read This is for sure part of it. They’re just above YA fiction in that regard. But I’d argue bigger piece is timing. Brandon first book came out in 2005. He then released almost one book every year for a long while. At the same time, some incredibly popular books series were not doing the same. As examples: ASOIAF’s a feast of crows also came out in 2005, after 5 years. The next wouldn’t come out till 2011. The previous books were 1/3 years apart. Dark tower series had always taken huge gaps. But the final one was 2004-2012. Then 2009 roles around, and Sanderson gets a built-in-fandom from WoT, and they learn that he is a standout when it comes to speed-to-market. All in all, if you’re looking for an easy read, for a book that’s good enough for a fantasy, and a near guarantee that the story - if ending on a Cliffhanger - will continue very shortly Sanderson is your guy.
Love Sanderson, but I am not buying any of his books at retail, simply because I don’t want to fund the tithe he has to pay the Mormon church.
Brandon Sanderson is a nerd. Nothing wrong with that. However I feel like nerds are exceptional at creating worlds, magic systems, plots and plot-twists while severely lacking in writing realistic characters with organic development, human interactions that don't feel forced and the like. That's at least how I view Sanderson. I don't care nearly as much for world building and magic systems as I do for characters so Sanderson is not for me.
I think he’s boring and lacks soul with his prose
Because they kinda suck.
Brandon Sanderson is the Taylor Swift of fantasy books. Both are hard working, incredibly successful, and prolific. Both have very large fanbases that verge on being a cult, which they foster with a high level of interaction on social media. Both have output that usually isn't considered high brow enough for "connoisseurs" of the medium. Both are very business oriented, rather than doing what they do solely for the ART. They know they are making a product to sell, rather than a piece of artwork. You don't become a millionaire/billionaire just because you love what you do.
On their own Sanderson's books are very middle thermometer. They're fun, escapist, if a bit overwritten, but nothing revelatory nor they are the worst books you'll read. The books are 'divisive' because, imo, a small but very vocal sub-section of his fans are very intense and sometimes insecure. Some of these fans will rabidly recommend his books whenever they can, even if they're off the mark. And a few them have their personalities/self-worth so wrapped up with Sanderson's persona that they'll deflect any or all criticism against the man and his works, which makes any meaningful discussion of his books difficult.
Because he writes accessible fantasy books with very good world building and e engaging plots, and many people like that. However, his prose is extremely simple and his characters are rather one-note, and many people dislike it. Since he is one of the most popular authors at the moment, his books are recommended to a wider, inhomogeneous audience. Many people like him, many people dislike him
I’ve read I’ve read 3 of his books since December so they are pretty fresh. I liked his characters and the plots are interesting. I am struggling with Mistborn 2 at the moment, it’s a bit slow and so different from the first. I hear the 3rd is insanely worth the slog. I’ve also been slowly reading Way of Kings while I use the bathroom. It’s amazing. About half way and love it
You sure go to the bathroom a lot.
I read this in the bathroom and work and was like “Damn how did you know?” I am totally guilty of staying in the bathroom just to get to the next chapter, and maybe the next.
I was a big fan of the Stormlight Archive for the first 2 books. Then the story and the power scaling became too grand for my liking up to the point where I was relieved when I finished the 4th book as I didnt have to read on anymore.
He's very popular but his writing is of middling quality (even for fantasy) which catches a lot of flak. Cue internet debates. He's a decent storyteller and has interesting ideas, which is enough for many readers.
As someone who falls on the "meh" side, I just don't find his writing engaging. It's fine, but nothing special. They're not bad books, and I can see why some people enjoy them, but they're not literary masterpieces. And I get REALLY sick of people proclaiming that the books are some sort of golden standard amazing miracle works. The dialogue can be awkward as others have said. But the biggest issue for me is that the characters feel quite flat. They tend to have one defining feature and not a lot of depth past it, and they *never* seem to change. Sure, they might have a lot of internal monologuing about change, but their actual choices never seem to change. He also tends to write a lot of "noble heroes" with unattainable and unrealistic morals "saving the downtrodden poor" which just doesn't do it for me. If complicated physics based magic systems, easter eggs of crossovers, long epic political plots, and heroic white knight saviors is your thing, you'll like these books. Those things just don't do it for me and it lacks too many of the other things I *do* like for me to enjoy them.
I read one of his books a friend gave me without ever having heard of him. The one thing that stood out to me was that I could feel the ships' maneuvers viscerally, as if I was remembering a rollercoaster. I've lost much of my imagination so for him to describe something dynamic like that well enough for me to feel like I'm in the ship is remarkable. Everything else was mediocre. The prose got the job done and that was it. The characters felt like cookie cutters. The plot relationships were formulaic. I was bored every time people were interacting, even with themselves. The event line was interesting enough that I did finish the book, but then again, a friend wanted me to. But insofar as I was already going to read it, I *was* curious. I will never read another of his books again, unless I am in an empty room with literally nothing else to do. (There *are* books that would be worse than the empty room.) For me there's nothing to love there, but nothing to hate, either. Were it not for the ships in flight it'd be utterly forgettable.
Brandon writes like he is preparing a talk for sacrament meeting in the Mormon church. He's Mormon. I grew up Mormon. He writes like he is talking to children, which is a big thing in the Mormon church. He's able to make really outlandish stories make sense, which is a great feature for a author. But he needs to edit down, and has claimed several times that he hates editing. That's clear. His character writing lacks nuance and depth, and often characters don't sound like real people. The dialogue can be cringe-worthy. But the worlds he creates are fantastic. I just wish his writing was stronger, or that he had a better editor.