Submitted by Dostojevskij1205 t3_zwleg3 in books

These are my first real fantasy books. I've been reading more than I ever have after starting AWoK. I'm halfway through Oathbringer now. I love some of the characters, and I was pulled into the plot in a way that I haven't since I was a child. I felt the same excitement that the best of GoT made me feel during the good seasons.

But more and more there are things that annoy me about the books. But small things, the kind of annoyance that might build up at the seemingly innocent personality traits of a good friend after spending too much time together.

The world feels incredibly deep and fleshed out. But at the same time, everything is crem, cremlings and "Storms!". Every description, exclamation and swear. Every simile, metaphor and analogy. It's all explained through these things. Highborn or lowborn. From the south or north, with a few exceptions (I love Rock).

Things are explained again and again. The oathgates will be brought up by a character, and the book will yet again describe what an oathgate is, it's function and how it operates. This happens with everything. Why someone is where they are. The what, why, when and how of this or that plotline. At one point I felt so excited for figuring out a plot point by the hints buried into the story itself. Then it's explained two paragraphs down, plainly in black and white.

Sometimes the writing is fantastic. Dalinar trying to figure out how to navigate himself and his complex moral quandaries in book 1 was incredible. Many of Wit's monologues are insightful and impressive. But it's all buried in hand-holdy narration, which is weird given how complicated the world itself is. And then you'll have Shallan falling into a heap for the 48th time, and Veil explaining the psychology of being Veil instead of her real self, mundanely.

When I talk about The Stormlight Archives with my friend I get excited and impatient to read on. But lately when I've sat down with the books I get increasingly ground down in caring less about the plot, and more about how I don't enjoy the way the book is written.



You must log in or register to comment.

captainhowdy82 t1_j1vb8ir wrote

Lol he’s not for me, either. I tried to read Stormborn and hated it. I found the explanations of the magic system to be super tedious.

Edit: Mistborn?


Dostojevskij1205 OP t1_j1vbtr8 wrote

I sort of enjoyed the discovery phase of the magic system, but now that it's established I do feel that it's lost some of it's... magic.

And there too you'll get the same description from every character every time they draw in stormlight.


Iari_Cipher9 t1_j1vby55 wrote

Oathbringer is where my interest began to fade and I didn’t finish it. His writing style seems to change from book to book, and his methods in Oathbringer bored me.


ADHD-HDTV t1_j1vcddz wrote

Honestly, Brandon Sanderson is overhyped in my opinion. If you’re not enjoying it, drop it. He is not the end all be all of fantasy, there are many others with stronger voices, beliefs, and much more to say.


CrawlTowardsBabylon t1_j1vdewo wrote

"stronger beliefs" that hit me, cause what I've always disliked most about Sanderson is his relentless pandering. Man has no spine. He's an extremely active establishment mormon, teaching post at BYU and everything, but he bends over backwards to please LGBT+ and allies in his books.

Its weird that that bothers me, cause I'm pro LGBT, but its like... you know when someone tries too hard to get you to like them? That's Brandon Sanderson


Southern-Toe5605 t1_j1vdkz4 wrote

Yep, I don't like him either for this and many other reasons. I agree he's a master of worldbuilding, and technically a fine writer, but other than that... his books always feel like YA to me.


seanrok t1_j1vh9bd wrote

He’s a bore and can’t write appealing dialogue, women or proper arcs.


CrawlTowardsBabylon t1_j1vhypm wrote

yeah i'd rather he just not mention it. The pandering makes it worse. Like we know what his actual beliefs are, we know BYU used to practice electroshock therapy on gay students. I'd rather he keep it entirely to himself. What he's done instead is weirdly grotesque in its logic.


crixx93 t1_j1vi5ii wrote

That's the thing tho. The Cosmere aims to be the MCU of lit fantasy. Meaning the novels are supposed to very approachable and digestible. I think you are simply not in the target audience. His work is simply YA but more competent than average


horrifyingthought t1_j1vi97a wrote

I love Sanderson's novels, but I have a hot take ready for you here -

Read what you enjoy reading.

If you don't wanna finish it, put it down and pick up something else that sparks joy! No worries if book three that is a massive tome isn't your thing. Rather than slog through it, find something delightful. Maybe you will come back to it later, maybe you won't. Both are okay.


Brain_Spawn t1_j1viio3 wrote

Yeah, Sanderson is beloved for his contribution as much as for his own personal writing. Don't force it. Think about what you do like about the books and help put that into words when asking for other recommendations. I love Brando Sando because I remember when he was first starting his career, and I liked how his take on magic systems felt new and foreign, but my wife does not like his writing style AT ALL. It's okay, I still love her, just not as much as I would if she also liked Brandon Sanderson. (That is not true, that is sarcasm.)


ddohert8 t1_j1vit8q wrote

I feel like he does that with the main plot and magic systems for the world the book takes place in. But then it's all of the connections to his other cosmere stuff that are a bit more hidden and you have to put two and two together to realize. Or even just learn it from his interviews and other places.


thegooddoktorjones t1_j1vixdf wrote

I could not get thorugh the first chapter of book 1. I think his world building is good and creative, but his prose is very boring to me. No poetry, just mechanics. Like a video game.

That is allways ok though, art is a matter of taste.


themuntik t1_j1vjwo2 wrote

LOVED the rest of his work and the first couple of volumes of stormlight, but then it really got to be too much. i tried 3 times to finish his last and i just can't.


captainhowdy82 t1_j1vltn4 wrote

People read for different reasons. I found the extreme detail on the magic took me right out of the immersion and immediacy of the action. Character and plot are always going to be the reasons for reading for me. I don’t really care about the technical intricacies of the metal magic stuff unless it’s creating obvious logical contradictions. Like Sanderson should know how his magic works, but it’s not more important than the plot or characters.


Cruciverbalist t1_j1vm2ou wrote

It's not just you. I've never managed to get through one of his books.


Griffen_07 t1_j1vmlwo wrote

Then go read that and see if you want to circle back to Sanderson. Sometimes you hit over saturation on a thing and need to clear your head. Others you just hit the limit of your tolerance for an author's quirks. Either way some distance will make it easier to judge. As you read more fantasy you may start drifting to a different style.


dawgfan19881 t1_j1vn7gs wrote

Sanderson is just a little overhyped. That’s all. His books are good not great. Which is fine. Let people like things.


ViniVidiVelcro t1_j1volus wrote

Sanderson's writing style is just so bland that I can never make it through the first chapter of Way of Kings.

In fantasy, I recommend Guy Gavriel Kay, Ken Liu, and Tad Williams all as superior authors. Especially Guy Gavriel Kay. That man's prose is gorgeous.


Iari_Cipher9 t1_j1vpl9x wrote

Agreed. The first two books were phenomenal, though the first stands out for me as the best among the two. To continue in the series, an audio book might be the solution. Less effort to get through the parts that aren’t personally working, and the voice acting is excellent.


ErikGunnarAsplund t1_j1vplol wrote

Recommendations for fantasy, with some notes on tone, for whatever you want to get out of the genre:

A Wizard of Earthsea (not long, very digestible, a lovely natural way of incorporating magic into a world and belief system, only a few books in the series)

Magician series by Raymond E Feist (serious, high aims, end of world stuff, sprawling across a massive universe with a huge cast, and the series can be continued on through several generations of various types of story, if you feel inclined to continue)

Anything of Discworld, start with Guards! Guards! (Very big world, huge cast, comedic in tone but often very serious and philosophical, the stories are tight and well planned, the magic is both absurd and serious)


CrawlTowardsBabylon t1_j1vt4qr wrote

they still encourage students to snoop on and report any gayness they can.

he doesn't support anyone but the church, to which he pays millions in tithing money to maintain his premium membership and teaching post, and a chunk of his readership would ditch him if he was no longer in good standing with the church.

he's a bubbly fake piece of shit, the utah archetype.


dexterthekilla t1_j1vti0o wrote

His writing style is extremely simple. So, if you love great prose, he’s not for you.


__babyslaughter__ t1_j1vu20t wrote

Some people like overly designed crunch.

Others prefer softer systems that focus on other aspects of story telling.

I don’t think there’s a wrong or a right.

But look at Gandalf. We never hear any mechanical aspect of his magic that i can think of. Sometimes he literally just seems like a guy who is deceptively powerful in hard to describe ways. No fireballs, no “speak this incantation to cast this spell” he just has this magical nature that you can’t quite put your finger on. To me, that seems like how magic would appear to a normal person in a fantasy world.

I appreciate soft magic. I can appreciate hard magic but it needs more than just an insanely well fleshed out world and magic system, which are the two things Sanderson has in spades. The other aspects of his writing don’t resonate with me


__babyslaughter__ t1_j1vuf1u wrote

One series I’ll always recommend is the Prince Of Nothing series.

It does have some hard magic systems explained, but not to the level of Sanderson. But it has much better characters, mostly all existing in a more gray morality. A well realized world, but with a more philosophical approach to story telling.

Probably my favorite modern fantasy. If it’s still considered modern


pretenditscherrylube t1_j1vws0n wrote

Broken Earth Trilogy has an amazing magic system with more adult sensibilities. Written by a black woman, so the nonwhite and non male characters are more fleshed out than trad fantasy. She’s also more concerned with rooting her story in the issues of today.

I also really like Memory Called Empire and it’s sequel. The author is a queer woman with a PhD in Medieval History, so her books have interesting meditations on the purpose of art, surveillance state, diplomacy, colonialism.

Sanderson is a really genuinely good guy, I hear. But he’s also a Mormon and lives in Utah. That doesn’t at all negate his ability to write compelling books, but Mormonism is patriarchal and white and all about maintaining the status quo. It makes sense to me that his books seek to exist completely beyond our current world.

That’s what a lot of more traditional sci-fi readers want - an escape from the current world. I dislike totally escapist sci-fi. To me, it feels insulting to create a world in the future and to replicate the inequalities in our current society as part of the default.

However, as different authors and readers enter the genre, we’re starting to see more sci-fi that’s seeking to be more than escapist and seeks to comment on the society we live in. You might like those books more.


TheRarebitFiend t1_j1vydfj wrote

I'm a Sanderson fan and I loved Licanius. I also think Stormlight Archives are probably the most difficult of his books to power through. There's considerable character development and lots of back in time sections to establish the issues the characters have. If I was to give anyone advice on reading Sanderson now it would be to read a Stormlight book then do a palatte cleanser with a different one of his books or something else entirely. I enjoy Sanderson in the same way I enjoy the MCU, it's fun, well put together, can be moving but it's NOT trying to be something highbrow, it's accessible, relatable and fun. But maybe not for everyone.


Adorable-Ad-3223 t1_j1w0tr9 wrote

I have given up on him a bit. It feels like he is just factory writing recently. I feel no investment in the books any longer. I assume it is just me/us but then again, that is true for literally every like/dislike we have.


boxer_dogs_dance t1_j1w7g1g wrote

I haven't tried him yet. But as a generalist reader I gravitate towards fantasy single books, dyads and trilogies. There are so many good authors that I want to try. Also I got burned by Martin and a Song of Ice and Fire.

There is no one right decision here. Trust your gut.


Rare-Lime2451 t1_j1w86al wrote

Jack Vance, Dying Earth (in omnibus) Gene Wolfe, Shadow of the Torturer Ursula LeGuin, Earthsea series

All original writers who can craft a sentence. Stay away from whatever is the big thing if you want more than just plot plot plot


Dostojevskij1205 OP t1_j1w872x wrote

No, I'd like the complete opposite of that. Veiled sociopolitical commentary is the last thing I want. Give me philosophy, something that resonates deeply. I don't want escape, but I sort of view politics as an escape also. Better a book that makes you confront yourself.


GrudaAplam t1_j1wkfpp wrote

You should be able to work that out for yourself by book three.


Brandosandofan23 t1_j1wrgl7 wrote

You’re not doing it right. Brandon is one of the greatest writers of all time.


Puzzleheaded_Cut7034 t1_j1wyujw wrote

You're forgetting this sub literally loves to shit on him because he has written more than 1 book in the last 5 years. It's natural human tendency to hate successful people so you'll see that too. Throw in some religion and politics and you've summated the entire thread.

Wish people could just enjoy fantasy stories for what they are; fantasy stories not some Nobel Prize contest. People make the same arguments against Harry Potter despite it being the best selling series ever.

As said above read what you enjoy.


zedatkinszed t1_j1wz3x7 wrote

The fanboys are going to downvote this to hell, but, Brandon Sanderson isn't a good writer. By this I mean his writing is bad. His prose and dialogue are utilitarian. Despite his deep world building, despite his plotting, his writing is poor.


Inner_Raise_4493 t1_j1xn00i wrote

Jeez, it took you that long to realize it weren't for you? I never understand why people slog through books they don't like.


Decent_Committee2308 t1_j1xv62l wrote

I really like Sanderson and Stormlight archive. I just read for pure enjoyment if its entertaining to me whether its well written or not or whatever else i will read it. But hey if its not for you time to dnf it🤷🏻‍♂️


Hammunition t1_j1xx0w6 wrote

I'd recommend The Shadow of What was Lost, then (Licanius Trilogy). It's similar to Sanderson in the worldbuilding area, but not so overexplained. And plenty of reflection/philosophy along the way. I have some issues with it, but one thing it does better than almost any other series I've read is showing the motivations of the characters and grounding them and making them logical to the characters as opposed to the plot. Also something I enjoyed was a lot of the history was woven into the dialogue. Well, I should say I enjoyed how well it was done. Because judging by the average book or tv show, that approach is almost always completely hamfisted and awful. But the author here does it very fittingly.


Hammunition t1_j1xxky4 wrote

Either it is simply pandering and marketing. Or he doesn't actually believe in the teaching of his church and truly does support LGBTQ equality... yet still gives millions to the organization that is actively harming those groups.

It doesn't make sense in any way I can see.


say_the_words t1_j1y41w4 wrote

You might not like fantasy. I can't stand any of it. If it has swords, dragons or kings and shit I won't touch it.


EmpRupus t1_j1ygy0o wrote

Yeah, this is my problem with him. His magic doesn't have the mystical quality to it. It feels super-logical and gamified to the point of just coming across as "technology" and not "magic".

Love his writing-related lectures on youtube though. Super useful advice on plotting, characterizations etc.


rumham_irl t1_j1yhlb1 wrote

That's what I really enjoy about his "magic", personally. I don't know if it has to do with being an engineer.. or maybe the other way around? But having such practical reasons and even explaining some metals as the body of other gods was great and kept me engaged.

Wondering if the characters had reserves or vials on them or other tricks up their sleeves kept the magic interesting imo.

And I could be wrong, as I've only read the series (all 7) once, but I believe that the mist itself is never fully explained? That filled the traditional role of the "mysterious" origin of the magic. But once again, I may be a bit off here..


Tarcanus t1_j1yz8ra wrote

Yeah, you're experiencing the big issue with Sando.

The man's a machine, and his stories are fun, but I still think he belongs in the YA section and has pulled the entire fantasy genre as a whole more toward YA and less toward more complexly written literature.

He tells, barely shows. His attempts at metaphor and simile are often cringe(I literally cringed at some of his attempts in the WoT books he wrote), and despite you thinking his worlds are deep, when you look again, they're broad and shallow as heck. He just picks a single cultural tic and beats that into the ground, but he has so many different cultures it tricks the reader into thinking it's complex.

But yeah, great intro author, but I think he's extremely overhyped to the point he's damaged the quality of other fantasy from his popularity.


RedMamba0023 t1_j1zdzcb wrote

I think sandersons prose is fine. I think what makes it tough is that the general audience want to learn the magic system so then they can enjoy the book. But with each book sanderson writes, there’s more to learn so it gets exhausting.

His Wayne voice in the second set of mistborn is 💯.


Hammunition t1_j1ze5n8 wrote

It's been a while since I read them, but no I didn't get that impression. I read the first few Mistborn books a couple years ago and had some of the same issues as you. Some people really enjoy how every little detail of how the magic works is explained in different ways more than once. And in that way Licanius is Sanderson-lite I guess. It's not overexplained at all. And not everything is explained in detail because the focus is on other aspects of the story and characters.

Personally, I prefer books that go even further away from the hard magic. Like Earthsea and Lord of the Rings. But Licanius is a good middle ground that I still enjoyed. Same for Name of the Wind and The Fifth Season, both of those have a detailed magic system that is understandable, but the pages of the book don't revolve around it.


Lord0fHats t1_j1zeag7 wrote

Any sufficiently explained magic is indistinguishable from science.

Which is why I don't really agree with his soft/hard magic division. Hard magic isn't magic at all. It's macguffin powered science. Magic is supposed to be mysterious and mystical imo. It can't exist on a 'hard' scale. If I fully understand the rules and 'systems' behind 'magic' there's nothing magical about it. It's a bounded system that has become a fictional science.

Which isn't a bad thing. I can see it's appeal and like plenty of books with such things, even Sanderson's. I'm just less interested in it and generally not as impressed by munchkinry as others and find the soft/hard magic concept to be an explanation in search of a concept rather than a useful division.

Honestly, if you want to see a marvelously made 'magical' system with clear rules that maintains mystery and mystic qualities, read Wildbow's urban fantasy (Pact and Pale). The ways he writes Practioners is a highlight of some truely excellent world building, and harkins to the kind of magic you'd see in Shakespearian theatre built on pacts, oaths, and traditions rather than a fantastical conservation of thermodynamics. It strikes a great balance between magic being explainable but still mystic because it mostly runs on the momentum of 'this is how we do it and we've always done it this way so follow the proper procedures!'


Lord0fHats t1_j1zf6n2 wrote

To be honest I've never liked his world building. I can smell the factory fresh scent on his worlds. They're too neat and orderly. Too obviously constructed and don't feel like real places with real history or active people. This is a common problem in fantasy to be fair and the extreme level of detail of Malazan has sort of spoiled me.

That said, Sanderson imo isn't a bad writer. One thing I like and look forward to is that he's gotten better over the years. Comparing Elantis to Warbreaker is night and day almost. I think someday he'll write something I unconditionally love and in the meantime he's entertaining enough for light reading in my book.


Lord0fHats t1_j20c64a wrote

Part of it is just a matter of deep lore, characterization, and proper world building.

People familiar with the broader context of Lord of the Rings know Gandalf is a Maia, and basically has all kind of god-like abilities. But he was sent to aid the Free Peoples, not become their lord or hero. He was explicitly forbidden from using his powers except in vague and undefined contexts.

He notably only really uses magic through the stories when faced with higher evils like the Balrog, Saruman, or the Nazgul. At other times, his efforts are physical or restricted to advising the course of events. And of those evils he uses his powers against, only the Balrog is one that he outright defeats himself.

Thing is most people know and criticize Gandalf by his clones in subsequent fantasy, which lack explanations for why the powerful wizard doesn't do powerful wizard stuff.


A-Grey-World t1_j21q6zf wrote

Depends what you want out of your writing I suppose. He's a good writer if you like plotting and world building (in his style) etc.

I'm not a big fan of fancy prose. Some I can appreciate, but I like the utility. It can be very effective in being invisible - you can just experience the story without realising "oh, that was a fancy bit of writing there" that makes you realise, well, you're reading.

It's more escapist. In that respect, it's good. For those who like it. (But I guess by that respect, 50 shades of grey is good, so maybe I'm persuading myself out of this argument lol)

High literature, it is not. But that's fine.


zedatkinszed t1_j21ra7o wrote

Sanderson is a good content creator in the field of books. He's a good plotter and world builder. But none of that makes him a writer. Not to mention a good one.

A writer has two tools - dialogue and prose. Saying someone is a good writer despite being bad at these two things (the writing) is like saying a house is "well built despite the crappy building job - but the architectural plan is great!"

Plot is just a schema - a structure. And worldbuilding is not writing.

I like the person BTW - I don't hate Brandon Sanderson - he's just not a "good writer". He's a hugely successful one. A hugely popular one. But no just because he can worldbuild and plot does not make him a "good" writer. He's a good storyteller sure, but not a good writer. That's why I call him a content creator TBH.


A-Grey-World t1_j23dftf wrote

>A writer has two tools - dialogue and prose. Saying someone is a good writer despite being bad at these two things (the writing) is like saying a house is "well built despite the crappy building job - but the architectural plan is great!"

You might be able to persuade me that he's not a good writer because he's not good at every aspect of being a writer.

But arguing that plot is not writing just doesn't work for me. Writing is all those factors. Being a good fiction writer has to involve being a good storyteller and being able to plot. If you can't do that, you are not a good writer.

You're right, prose and dialogue are tools. You don't have to be the best user of tools to produce good work. There's some hugely technically competent artists out there that paint photorealistic perfect paintings, they're using the tools almost perfectly. They might not be good artists though because art is more than technical execution. It also includes interesting subjects, composition. Many renown artists might not use the tools so technically well, but portray ideas, emotion, and story so much better with a splash of paint.

>Plot is just a schema - a structure. And worldbuilding is not writing.

Here's where we disagree. What is writing without the content? You're arguing being a good writer is solely about the literal act of writing, it's so much more. What's the point of the writing if the ideas it conveys are shit? Great dialogue, that conveys no meaning, makes little sense etc.

If you study writing, plotting, characters, the thing you're writing is a key thing to study and improve.

A hollow shell of meaningless but technically competent prose is not good writing.

>... He's a good storyteller sure, but not a good writer. That's why I call him a content creator TBH.

You can't be a good fiction writer without being a good storyteller, is what I'm saying.

Calling him a "content creator" is petty as hell. You're gatekeeping the word "writing" so hard someone who's written a whole bunch of books and got them published and thousands of people enjoy because you don't like his prose? Are only "good" (by your definition) writers allowed to be called writers lol?


zedatkinszed t1_j23my7s wrote

>You can't be a good fiction writer without being a good storyteller, is what I'm saying.

The whole of modernist literature disagrees with you. And postmodern literature. And the Romantic poets. And all contemporary poetry. I mean what's really the plot of Invisible Cities, or Ulysses or Death in Venice. Your definition is the limited one I'm afraid. A book doesn't need a story or a plot per se.

>Being a good fiction writer has to involve being a good storyteller and being able to plot. If you can't do that, you are not a good writer.

To be a popular novelist sure. But writing page turners doesn't make you a good writer. It makes you a prolific and successful content creator. I mean Dan Brown is hugely successful and still a crap writer. Paolo Coehlo too. Sarah J Maas, Coleen Hoover & Sally Rooney are all successful some critically acclaimed - none good.

  • Being a writer is about writing skill. The clue is in the word. It's a craft.
  • Being a storyteller is about storytelling skill. It's a related but different craft.
  • Being a content creator is about content - creation skill. It's what publishers and the markets wants - more and more and more and more.
  • Being a worldbuilder is world building skill. It's a totally different craft especially in SFF. And Sanderson is good at this.

These are different things and they are mutually exclusive. And there's nothing wrong with that. But Brandon Sanderson isn't a good writer. Due to the fact that his writing is poor, bland, hastily written and under developed. And all of that is due to the fact that the guy pumps out 300k+ word books way too quickly. He doesn't refine the writing - he just does more. Sorry but that's content creation.

And writers do need to be content creators. It just shouldn't be all they are.

I'd venture further that his own upbringing as a Mormon was pretty sheltered from really interesting writing (poetry, modernist literature, postmodernist literature). You know all the good stuff that deals with what Eliot and Yeats called Sex and Death. All the books the LDS hates. The "dirty" stuff. All the stuff that informs writers as they learn about that craft and how to create characters. You see this in a number of LDS writers - Meyer, Dan Wells - not 100% certain why but I dated a Mormon and she wasn't allowed to be well read.

Also - yes:

>Many renown artists might not use the tools so technically well, but portray ideas, emotion, and story so much better with a splash of paint.

That's voice/style. That's mastery. That's being good at the craft. Compare Sanderson's ability to construct worlds and magic systems and plots with his ability to use prose. He's got 3 out of 4. That's more than most people. I mean GRRM can write & world build but his content creation skill is functionally zero at this point.

And here's the thing some great writers are really boring. Saying someone is a great writer doesn't mean they write successful or page turning books. It means they're an artist.

Sanderson is not an artist with words but he is a multi millionaire - so fair play to him.

I'm not saying he's a bad novelist btw - just a bad writer.


FatalTragedy t1_j2491ah wrote

>find the soft/hard magic concept to be an explanation in search of a concept rather than a useful division.

Except it clearly is still a useful division, given that you actually have the same division. You just call it something different. What Sanderson calls hard magic you call not magic at all, while what Sanderson calls soft magic you just call magic. But the division is still there.


zedatkinszed t1_j24b8gn wrote

Simple prose is not always the same thing as good prose either.

His prose isn't simple -- it's poor, it's artless. His fans say prose, characters and dialogue aren't his strong suit. Fine. Just don't proclaim to the rest of us that he's a good writer then.


Lefty1992 t1_j24onu2 wrote

Sanderson's writing is bad. He has some good ideas and world building, but the writing itself sucks. His dialogue is wooden and he repeats the same phrases over and over.


Lord0fHats t1_j250ur3 wrote

If I found it useful I'd use it.

The only time I ever discuss the idea is in reference to Sanderson and how I don't agree with him.

Magic is magic.

Not magic isn't magic.

Semantics doesn't change my opinion on the topic.


zedatkinszed t1_j269on7 wrote

>he belongs in the YA section and has pulled the entire fantasy genre as a whole more toward YA and less toward more complexly written literature.

This is probably the best summing up of half of the damage Sanderson has inadvertently done to the genre. He's cemented the idea that it is a kids' & teenagers' genre.

The other half is made up of his laws, his volume of production and his impact on the readers but that's another story.


Tarcanus t1_j28mmw3 wrote

Yep, I agree.

It's always hard to have these conversations, though, because of his popularity. The fans will usually be upset at the criticism leveled at him and it's frustrating.

I think it's great his books are so fun and that so many people are reading, now, because of how accessible they are. I just don't think he belongs in the adult fantasy section and I've noticed WAY more fun, fluffy, fantasy in the adult section since Sando got popular that would be more appropriate in the YA section.


zedatkinszed t1_j28yo7h wrote

Yeah, I'm sad that we don't have the next GGK or Gaiman or LeGuin coming through. In fact I suspect it's because publishers _want _ the Sando type (volume over quality, YA over lit) that we aren't.