Brandon Sanderson

[Jonn]

Quote:

 

I honestly wondered at the fact that I could detect genuine anger at those men in the truck with the author. His anger included the feelings he felt after being called a Mormon because of the way he presented himself. The anecdote said a lot about where he was coming from in regards to what he thought about Mormons.

 

Are you really that dense? BC Woods was being tormented by his co-workers because he seemed to share many traits that they apparently believed are possessed by Mormons. Nothing in the post places Mormons in a bad light. The post also does not imply that the author felt ill-will towards his tormenters because they called him a Mormon, he felt ill-will towards them because he had beer cans thrown at his head. Moreover, the author goes out of his way to indicate that concerns that Sanderson is not upto the job of finishing AMOL because of his membership in LDS are unfounded by pointing out that there is a rich tradition of Mormons who are also great fantasy writers(Concerns that by your own explicite statements you shared until you read Sanderson's works). If anything, BC Woods exhibits a less prejudiced view of Mormons then you do.

 

I am not unhinged I simply despise people who are so PC that they can not distinguish between stereotypes and Archetypes. They are both generalizations true, but the former is negative and meant to be abusive, the latter is positive and complimentary. I also have known many Mormons, a few have been despicable human beings but the

vast majority I found to be moral and family-oriented, two traits that I find to be quite complimentary.

 

My own post made it quite clear that the only thing that might be effected by Sanderson's membership in LDS is that he would not likely write explicite sex scenes or graphic depictions of violence. I also pointed out that this should not be a concern as RJ himself never wrote explicite sex scenes or graphic depictions of violalence. I also made a snide remark about Terry Goodkind who does write explicite sex scenes and graphic depictions of violence.

 

That you did not find the post funny or humorous is your right. To misstate the contents or the author's intent is not.

 

Wow, you really are determined to make a pointless point.

 

Um, have you read Sanderson's Mistborn? I'll assume that you have. What exactly in that book leads you to believe that his religion has anything to do with his ability to write about sex and violence?

 

In Mistborn the main character, Vin, is constantly aware of the threat that she is under threat of being casually raped by members of her own crew. Nobles in the book are constantly depicted as being lustful rapists who often murder their victims and care about it as much as they would about throwing away a candy wrapper.

 

That's sex and violence, and not just violence, it's violence of the most brutal sort, and it's all casually mentioned.

 

You're not likely to read many bad words or explicit sexual scenes in your standard fantasy novel anyway. RJ was no exception to that general standard.

 

Again, what does Sanderson being Mormon have to do with it?

 

Sure, the author preambles his attempt at humor directed towards Mormons by being patronizing and mentioning other Mormon authors and how he admires their work, but then he spends the bulk of the rest of the posting, making fun of Sanderson being a Mormon and generally weird, in the same breath. He's not only weird, him being a Mormon makes him even more weird.

 

Same goes for his description of his Navajo co-workers. They're depicted as cruel and racist, laughing like dogs, and hey maybe they were like that, but again the author made it a point to depict them as Indians and lustful, and dirty and cruel, meanwhile he separates himself from them and makes himself look clean and innocent and righteous. The imagery is there and it's vivid. The Indians are dirty and racist, mannerisms those of animals, and poor white guy has to endure their torment just because he doesn't drink or smoke or do drugs or have sex with random women. Boohoo, how dare these Indians call him a Mormon! He's not a weirdo Mormon, he just acts like one.

 

Look, I've had experiences with Mormons and people raised as Mormons who have a generally favorable outlook on the religion, but don't really practice by the book.

 

There are Mormons who like sex, who smoke weed, drink, gamble and cuss. Just as there are baptists who do so and catholics, Muslims and Jewish people who also do so. I mean really, I've known Mormons who are very adventurous about sex and having a good time. I'm also aware of the extremes in religion. The hypocrisy. I was well aware that before I got familiar with Sanderson's work, I really didn't know enough about him to come to a conclusion as to whether or not he fell under any of the extreme examples of people within his faith. I do have prejudices, but I choose to act upon these feelings as fairly as I can. It's all dependent on each individual person's actions.

 

I felt that the author of the blog didn't use a very even tone while he was trying to make his post humorous. I personally thought that it came out mean-spirited and that it attacked Sanderson's religion. A lot of the author's own insecurities seeped out as he flippantly threw insult after insult at Sanderson, but of course it's all in good fun. Hey, it's his blog, he can do whatever he likes.

 

I could always put up a blog and procure pictures of him and put captions under them calling him a fat (I don't know if he's really that fat, but the Shrek comments indicate that he is sensitive about it), self-pitying, racist, nerd who acts like a Mormon, all in good fun of course. I'd make it funny see...Then again, why would I go to the trouble? It's not like HE'S finishing the last book in RJ's epic. I don't even know the guy. Why should I bother putting something up that isn't remotely true at the expense of someone I don't even know getting snickered at by dozens of people?

 

My own post made it quite clear that the only thing that might be effected by Sanderson's membership in LDS is that he would not likely write explicite sex scenes or graphic depictions of violence. I also pointed out that this should not be a concern as RJ himself never wrote explicite sex scenes or graphic depictions of violalence. I also made a snide remark about Terry Goodkind who does write explicite sex scenes and graphic depictions of violence.

 

Again, I'll be clear:

I don't think him being a Mormon has anything to do with how he writes about sex and violence any more than RJ's religion had an effect on how he wrote about sex and violence. The genre generally evens out the way these topics are addressed anyway.

 

Also, Sanderson has some pretty graphic violence in most of his works. I mean, decapitations, torture, skin being torn off, faces squeezed to pulp. RJ has been known to depict violence like this as well. Like I said before, if you don't see those passages as violent enough to merit being called graphic violence, I have to seriously wonder what your idea of graphic violence is.

 

As for sexual content, I mean, what do you want? Would you feel better about it if Sanderson included a fully detailed anatomical description of what Rand does in his bed with his women? RJ never wrote like that, why would Sanderson even consider pushing the envelope?

 

In any case, it's not like Sanderson doesn't acknowledge sex in his writing, he does. I mean, that right there should put a bullet right through the heart of the argument that his religion affects his ability to write about sex and violence.

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

My own post made it quite clear that the only thing that might be effected by Sanderson's membership in LDS is that he would not likely write explicite sex scenes or graphic depictions of violence. I also pointed out that this should not be a concern as RJ himself never wrote explicite sex scenes or graphic depictions of violalence. I also made a snide remark about Terry Goodkind who does write explicite sex scenes and graphic depictions of violence.

 

Again, I'll be clear:

I don't think him being a Mormon has anything to do with how he writes about sex and violence any more than RJ's religion had an effect on how he wrote about sex and violence. The genre generally evens out the way these topics are addressed anyway.

 

Also, Sanderson has some pretty graphic violence in most of his works. I mean, decapitations, torture, skin being torn off, faces squeezed to pulp. RJ has been known to depict violence like this as well. Like I said before, if you don't see those passages as violent enough to merit being called graphic violence, I have to seriously wonder what your idea of graphic violence is.

 

As for sexual content, I mean, what do you want? Would you feel better about it if Sanderson included a fully detailed anatomical description of what Rand does in his bed with his women? RJ never wrote like that, why would Sanderson even consider pushing the envelope?

 

 

In any case, it's not like Sanderson doesn't acknowledge sex in his writing, he does. I mean, that right there should put a bullet right through the heart of the argument that his religion affects his ability to write about sex and violence. 

 

 

 

 

In an essay in which Sanderson discusses Rowlings outing of Dumbbedore he stated

 

 

I am a practicing member of the LDS (aka Mormon) church. I am up front about this, and feel that it does influence my work and perspective on writing.

 

http://www.brandonsanderson.com/article/51/EUOLogy-Dumbledores-Homosexuality

 

 

There is a world of difference between the way Sanderson and RJ deal with sex and violence and how those things are depicted by authors such as Goodkind. Your assertion that sex and violence are muted in the genre as a whole was true until about 25 years ago when Goodkind and his ilk started writing more "realisric" fantasy. I am not going to describe what this entails on this forum let it suffice to say that in Goodkind's case he graphicly depicts the rape of characters "on screen". Second you may have noticed that in Sanderson's novels the only time that "good" characters have sex is when they are married to each other. That I will assert is the subtle way in which Sanderson being LDS effects his writings.

 

Second, what you view as BC Woods' mocking of Sanderson I see as gentle good natured ribbing. He likes Sanderson, he admires the "wholesome" nature of most Mormons, he is not mocking them. Moreover, his blog entry should be seen in context. He has previously written about his experiences in the oil rigs and how he was tormented for being physically odd looking (he has made multiple references that he does in fact resemble an orge) and habits (he does not drink, take drugs or whore around). If you are going to publicly defame a person in a public forum please have the common courtesy (and common sense) to make sure that your comments are factually accurate.

[Mat is Better]

Blood and bloody ashes!  I think Harriet knows what she is doing.  Nuff said.

[Jonn]

I think you have some serious Goodkind issues to work out.

 

I don't think it's irrational of me to assert that people shouldn't be prejudged because of their religion, or at least be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

As has been said several times, Harriet has chosen someone she feels is competent to do the job and has never mentioned the Mormon religion.

 

It'd be nice to follow her lead in respecting Sanderson's religion, in that it is his.

 

The author of the blog has a different set of views in my opinion.

 

OK, I'm not idiotic.

 

If you think that I am, that's your belief, doesn't necessarily make it true CUBAREY.

 

You have some sort of weird habit of going bat**** whenever you can link something to Goodkind. Please leave me out of it.

 

Jon

 

Quote:

 

My own post made it quite clear that the only thing that might be effected by Sanderson's membership in LDS is that he would not likely write explicite sex scenes or graphic depictions of violence. I also pointed out that this should not be a concern as RJ himself never wrote explicite sex scenes or graphic depictions of violalence. I also made a snide remark about Terry Goodkind who does write explicite sex scenes and graphic depictions of violence.

 

Again, I'll be clear:

I don't think him being a Mormon has anything to do with how he writes about sex and violence any more than RJ's religion had an effect on how he wrote about sex and violence. The genre generally evens out the way these topics are addressed anyway.

 

Also, Sanderson has some pretty graphic violence in most of his works. I mean, decapitations, torture, skin being torn off, faces squeezed to pulp. RJ has been known to depict violence like this as well. Like I said before, if you don't see those passages as violent enough to merit being called graphic violence, I have to seriously wonder what your idea of graphic violence is.

 

As for sexual content, I mean, what do you want? Would you feel better about it if Sanderson included a fully detailed anatomical description of what Rand does in his bed with his women? RJ never wrote like that, why would Sanderson even consider pushing the envelope?

 

 

In any case, it's not like Sanderson doesn't acknowledge sex in his writing, he does. I mean, that right there should put a bullet right through the heart of the argument that his religion affects his ability to write about sex and violence. 

 

 

 

 

In an essay in which Sanderson discusses Rowlings outing of Dumbbedore he stated

 

 

I am a practicing member of the LDS (aka Mormon) church. I am up front about this, and feel that it does influence my work and perspective on writing.

 

http://www.brandonsanderson.com/article/51/EUOLogy-Dumbledores-Homosexuality

 

 

There is a world of difference between the way Sanderson and RJ deal with sex and violence and how those things are depicted by authors such as Goodkind. Your assertion that sex and violence are muted in the genre as a whole was true until about 25 years ago when Goodkind and his ilk started writing more "realisric" fantasy. I am not going to describe what this entails on this forum let it suffice to say that in Goodkind's case he graphicly depicts the rape of characters "on screen". Second you may have noticed that in Sanderson's novels the only time that "good" characters have sex is when they are married to each other. That I will assert is the subtle way in which Sanderson being LDS effects his writings.

 

Second, what you view as BC Woods' mocking of Sanderson I see as gentle good natured ribbing. He likes Sanderson, he admires the "wholesome" nature of most Mormons, he is not mocking them. Moreover, his blog entry should be seen in context. He has previously written about his experiences in the oil rigs and how he was tormented for being physically odd looking (he has made multiple references that he does in fact resemble an orge) and habits (he does not drink, take drugs or whore around). If you are going to publicly defame a person in a public forum please have the common courtesy (and common sense) to make sure that your comments are factually accurate.

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

As has been said several times, Harriet has chosen someone she feels is competent to do the job and has never mentioned the Mormon religion.

 

It'd be nice to follow her lead in respecting Sanderson's religion, in that it is his.

 

 

Nothing I have said can reasonably be taken as disrespectful to Sandersons' religion. My disagreement with you comes down to two points. I disagree with your charactization of BC Woods' post. I also disagree with your view that a person's (specifily Sanderson's) religion does not effect his writing. Sanderson himself has affirmed this. I however, believe that, at least in the case of Sanderson, the influence is subtle and in no way effects his ability to finish AMOL. Finally, I do not go bat**** whenever I can link an argument to Goodkind. I simply use him as an example of things I do not like about certain authors (ripping off other writers, being obnoxous to his fans, letting his philosophical views rule the plots in his books, his use  of explicite sex scenes and graphic violence, etc.)because in my opinion, he has so many flaws.

[Jonn]

Quote:

 

As has been said several times, Harriet has chosen someone she feels is competent to do the job and has never mentioned the Mormon religion.

 

It'd be nice to follow her lead in respecting Sanderson's religion, in that it is his.

 

 

Nothing I have said can reasonably be taken as disrespectful to Sandersons' religion. My disagreement with you comes down to two points. I disagree with your charactization of BC Woods' post. I also disagree with your view that a person's (specifily Sanderson's) religion does not effect his writing. Sanderson himself has affirmed this. I however, believe that, at least in the case of Sanderson, the influence is subtle and in no way effects his ability to finish AMOL. Finally, I do not go bat**** whenever I can link an argument to Goodkind. I simply use him as an example of things I do not like about certain authors (ripping off other writers, being obnoxous to his fans, letting his philosophical views rule the plots in his books, his use  of explicite sex scenes and graphic violence, etc.)because in my opinion, he has so many flaws.

 

You do get a bit...aggressive whenever you get into Goodkind mode. You might want to check whether or not it is affecting your ability to maintain a civil tone in a discussion.

 

You simply don't understand my point, and that's fine. You don't have to try to prove that you're smarter than me or anything. I mean really. You and I probably have a lot more in common than you'd like to admit at times.

 

My message is this: Treat people according to their individual attributes, not a preconceived notion you've concocted in your brain to seem totally acceptable, when in reality if you said it to someone's face it could be demeaning and hurtful.

 

Backhanded, patronizing remarks as displayed in that blog, may be good-natured and funny to you, but to others like myself, it pretty self-serving to "poke fun" at someone you don't even know, knowing you're pretty safe from any retort.

 

It's been established that Sanderson is a pretty decent fellow, and even if he did take the step to defend himself and reply, it's a no win situation. He can't comment except to be gracious and to say that he thought it was funny, because that's the image suits him. If he were to be insulted or at least bothered by the sentiment that his Mormon faith makes readers look at him in a different light, good or bad, because of prejudiced notions...Well, he couldn't well fire back at the author. It would give the author of the blog the chance to paint him as a jerk or a something like Terry Goodkind.

 

It's a tactic that every bully has used on every "geek", "nerd" and "goody-goody" to insult and take the high ground and say;  "Oh, they can't take a joke?"

 

And if I think you have issues with Goodkind, I KNOW I have issues with bullies, and fakes, and true hypocrites. Everyone is a hypocrite to some degree, but a true hypocrite's aim is to undermine and to bully and to contradict all just to feel a little better about their miserable self.

 

I don't know if the author of that blog is a bully or a true hypocrite, but his article didn't sit well with me in any case. He basically said, "Hey everybody, look at the geek and laugh!" And some of us did.

 

How sad I think it is that the person Harriet chose to finish her husband's magnum opus has but one serious topic in general discussion with his name on it: Brandon Sanderson...

 

And the respect given to him is this?

 

Squabbling about his religion and some guy's geek show blog? It's not even really about Brandon Sanderson, is it?

 

How shameful.

[CUBAREY]

Quote"

 

You simply don't understand my point, and that's fine.

 

No I understand your point, however, I disagree with your interpretation of BC WOOds' motives. I also disagree generally on your desire to base a discussion on an author's works on the "four corners" of such works and not on the extrinsic influences that may effect an author's writing. In Sanderson's case, he has made no secret that his beliefs, influence his writings. As I have previously stated, my opinion (which I believe is born out in Sanderson's essay on the outing od Dumbledore by Rowling) is quite subtle. The effect on other author's is much more easily appreciated. In Goodkind's SOL series his "objectivest" philosophy is not only clearly on display but plays a central role in the books. I suggest it would be quite difficult to discuss the series, in any serious way, without taking into account Goodkind's objectivism.

 

Quote:

 

 

Backhanded, patronizing remarks as displayed in that blog, may be good-natured and funny to you, but to others like myself, it pretty self-serving to "poke fun" at someone you don't even know, knowing you're pretty safe from any retort.

 

Again I dispute the accuracy of your characterization of BC Woods' remarks.

 

Quote:

 

He can't comment except to be gracious and to say that he thought it was funny, because that's the image suits him. If he were to be insulted or at least bothered by the sentiment that his Mormon faith makes readers look at him in a different light, good or bad, because of prejudiced notions...Well, he couldn't well fire back at the author.

 

True, but an author who was actually offended by such comments made by a fan in a blog or otherwise would normally simply not comment. Because you view the comments as offensive you believe that Sanderson was not being straightforward when he said it was funny. I believing, that the comments were not offensive take Sanderson's statement at face value (Actually I have not recall seeing where Sanderson commented on the post at all, but presume you are correct in asserting that he did).

 

 

Quote:

 

How sad I think it is that the person Harriet chose to finish her husband's magnum opus has but one serious topic in general discussion with his name on it: Brandon Sanderson...

 

And the respect given to him is this?

 

Squabbling about his religion and some guy's geek show blog? It's not even really about Brandon Sanderson, is it?

 

How shameful.

 

Since we have together contributed the vast majority of the posts on this topicI would say that we are equally to blame and share the same amount of shame.

 

I myself would enjoy a discussion on Sanderson's use of flawd and pyscologically scarred main characters. Although the main characters are all mentally scarred in some way this is most true, in my opinion in his Mistborn novels. Care to respond?