Sanderson vs. Jordan

[cageaouk]

I just finished reading ToM and it really reinforced feelings I develop whilst reading TGS.

 

I hope I'm not speaking sacrilege here, but does anyone agree with me that Sanderson has done a great job (perhaps better than RJ) of developing characters? I won't go into specific detail as I don't want to risk spoilers, but I don't think it's be giving too much away to say that the job he's done with Mat has been brilliant. Whereas before we were lead to believe he was this cheeky rogue, more through implication and inference, Sanderson has given him some great action and dialogue to really bring him to life.

 

I felt the last two RJ books - especially Crossroads - were really flat. In Crossroads I felt the plot was barely move forward an inch!

 

I was really wary of another author taking over the series, but I think Sanderon's writing has really revitalised the series, just when it needs it the most. I've enjoyed the books so much I went out and got the Mistborn series which I can highly recommend!

[ScottyV]

Personally I enjoyed RJ's writing alot more than Sandersons. I feel like the characters do and say things that they wouldn't have done before BS took over, they always seem to speak their mind. This is just my opinion but in the real world people don't always say what their thinking, or do whatever seems best at the moment, and I think RJ capture this reality perfectly and it feels like BS took that away. I still really enjoy the books, don't get me wrong, but I while reading TGS and ToM I felt like I was meeting and getting to know all new characters not continuing the journey with characters I already knew. But I love the books that Sanderson wrote, his Mistborn series and Warbreaker I think it was called, his writing style fits his books perfectly but it seems forced in the Wot.

[cageaouk]

I think you've got a great point there. That witholding of information/thought is what makes Gene Wolfe my favourite author. I just feel that RJ never went far enough in that direction to develop his characters in that way. It seemed like there just wasn't enough time spent on developing these really remarkable people and too much time spent on braid tugging, faces that look like stone and smiles that don't meet the eyes.

[Rufae]

They are different styles definitely. Brandon says what is oging on character's heads rather than showing or implying. In a way, that is a more novice way to do things. I think RJ would have been more subtle in his style. In that regard, I perfer RJ. Sometimes Brandon shows TOO MUCH.

 

Other than that, keep in mind that Brandonis writing at RJ's direction. So the development and paths that these characters take are RJ's, not Brandon's.

[Threepy]

Hey, just registered :)

 

I think the problem with this debate is that (as far as I know anyway) we don't know what sections Robert Jordan wrote, we don't know what plans he had for the characters and we don't know what was in the notes he left.

Sanderson has done a wonderful job, even with overuse of the word 'tempest' but I try not to compare them too much since I'm just happy someone decent is about to give the series an end. They have different styles. Robert Jordan was more subtle, whereas with Sanderson things are made a bit more obvious, spelled out a little. Sometimes I do prefer the writing of the later books because more open people are a little less frustrating but the subtlety seemed more realistic to me.

 

I do love how Sanderson writes Mat though. He has always been a great character to me but his humour through the eyes of Sanderson has been brilliant. I think maybe if the final book of Robert Jordan was CoT more people would agree with you, but I thought KoD was pretty enjoyable.

[username13]

Also need to remember that these last books are the payoff books to everything that has come before, all the actions, character and story developments. The greater moments in these books wouldn't have existed without the creation and build up that came before. People have been waiting for years for certain threads to be tied off, and that's happening in these books, as scheduled, so the enjoyment and relief if that may be what people are appreciating

[Suttree]

I just finished reading ToM and it really reinforced feelings I develop whilst reading TGS.

 

I hope I'm not speaking sacrilege here, but does anyone agree with me that Sanderson has done a great job (perhaps better than RJ) of developing characters? I won't go into specific detail as I don't want to risk spoilers, but I don't think it's be giving too much away to say that the job he's done with Mat has been brilliant. Whereas before we were lead to believe he was this cheeky rogue, more through implication and inference, Sanderson has given him some great action and dialogue to really bring him to life.

 

I felt the last two RJ books - especially Crossroads - were really flat. In Crossroads I felt the plot was barely move forward an inch!

 

I was really wary of another author taking over the series, but I think Sanderon's writing has really revitalised the series, just when it needs it the most. I've enjoyed the books so much I went out and got the Mistborn series which I can highly recommend!

 

That is a rather interesting viewpoint especially as it pertains to Mat. If you took a poll of the fans single biggest issue with TGS it would be how Mat was portrayed. I guess we really can't say until we know who wrote what sections, but to me BS just doesn't understand how to write that type of character very well.

[dovien]

I think the difference is that Brandon is working under a strict deadline, so to speak. He only has so many words left before he has to stop writing and he needs to hurry all the characters along so that they're the right people at the right moments.

[nophone]

Jordan = Epic Writer with amazing poetries

 

Sanderson = Knows how to put a nail in a coffin, finish a subject, MOVE ON

 

of course that's what he's paid for.

 

 

Just think if they had been friends.

 

"No jordan! you can't keep going, f'ing kill somebody!"

[Taura-Tierno]

I liked Jordan's Mat (he was one of my favourite characters) but I love Sanderson's, as well.

 

As for the others ... well, they're basically the same, I think. Except for Perrin. I've hated Perrin for most of the series, but in ToM, he grew on me, and now I kind of like him.

[anthony187]

As for the others ... well, they're basically the same, I think. Except for Perrin. I've hated Perrin for most of the series, but in ToM, he grew on me, and now I kind of like him.

 

 

I agree with this 100%. I could not stand Perrin and his forever "I'm not a leader, Where's faile". He was kind of depressing. Now I found I liked him a lot more.

[David Selig]

Let's put that way - Jordan of the first 6 books was a better writer than Sanderson is now, but Sanderson is much better than the Jordan who wrote Book 7-11.

[nophone]

I thought book 7 was pretty good. for me jordan falls off a bit after that.

[jbc]

Haven't gotten that far in the series as yet but I am glad to hear that Sanderson has done such a great job.

[cageaouk]

Selig, I think you've got a great point there. The early books in the series were the best - they were what really got me hooked. As the series moved on it lost impetus a bit. It was almost like it got out of control - too big. Some characters stagnated a la Taura and Anthony's comments about Perrin. ("I'm not a leader. Where's Faile?" LOL!)

 

Legacy, I think you've made a really great point as well. It's finally payoff time. Would RJ have done it just as well, or perhaps better?

 

One of the things I've always liked about the series is how epic it really is. I'm always on the lookout for another series of this length and quality. I loved Wolfe's Urth cycle and Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books were pretty good. Goodkind's Sword of Truth series was really good, if a bit preachy. I dragged myself through Eddings' Elenium but didn't really like it as all the characters sounded like wise-ass frat boys. Can anyone suggest a series?

[Rufae]

Goodkind's Sword of Truth series was really good, if a bit preachy

.

 

Complete and utter trash. The pages of which are not worthy enough to be used as toliet paper in Gitmo.

[Bubbs1873]

There are a lot of good points made, but personally I think that a lot of the pace that has been injected actually began in KoD and that the final books were always going to be pretty frantic. I am just happy that Brandon has given us a Finale that (so far) I have thoroughly enjoyed. I only wish that AMoL was ready now.

[EvilSocrates]

Personally I enjoyed RJ's writing alot more than Sandersons. I feel like the characters do and say things that they wouldn't have done before BS took over, they always seem to speak their mind. This is just my opinion but in the real world people don't always say what their thinking, or do whatever seems best at the moment, and I think RJ capture this reality perfectly and it feels like BS took that away. I still really enjoy the books, don't get me wrong, but I while reading TGS and ToM I felt like I was meeting and getting to know all new characters not continuing the journey with characters I already knew. But I love the books that Sanderson wrote, his Mistborn series and Warbreaker I think it was called, his writing style fits his books perfectly but it seems forced in the Wot.

 

I think that is a solid insight. The differences in their writing style and the pressures of a deadline and existing characters do cause some minor discord, which isn't seen in Sanderson's other books. However, I think Sanderson has some weaknesses in his writing that come out in his other books as well. In my opinion, the biggest one is the way he handles romantic love in his books, which he often makes a huge theme for some reason--it seems very adolescent. Many of his characters are display sentiments like: "Oh, I live for you, my darling, and I think and breathe only for you! You are my home and my all!" The worst offenders appear in his Mistborn series, but also see, e.g. Perrin, Gawain, Min, and out of nowhere, Morgase. Interestingly, Mat (whose portrayal nobody likes apparently--though I did) is the only one who is more authentic. His feelings for Tuon are those of concern attachment and appreciation, mixed with a little bit of denial of course (He's bloody Mat, after all). That strikes me as much more like how adults who care for each other actually feel--love isn't a metaphysical force that shakes mountains (I'm looking at you Rand) it's an emotion, albeit an important one. In contrast, Robert Jordan has one of the best dramatic love scenes in any fantasy book I have ever read: Rand being bonded. The reaction of the women to feeling what he feels was simply astonishing--the contrast between Elayne horror and Aviendha's pride at feeling Ran's pain was beautiful.

 

What it comes down to is that Sanderson is a less mature writer I think. That said, he's becoming a much better writer than Robert Jordan was. Jordan was hot and cold. He had great characters, but they had glacial growth. He had fantastic scenes (cleansing of the taint!), followed by a hundred pages of baths and embroidery. An interesting and complicated plot, but no structure or advancement or pacing, and with no actual tension or danger.

 

What's really exciting about Sanderson is that each book he has released has gotten noticeably better as he has matured as an author. I think The Way of Kings, his latest, is at least as good as anything Jordan ever wrote. Better probably (certainly better than the Eye of the World--Jordan's initial WoT offering). He has excellent pacing, compelling characters and dangerous villains who experience real growth (which doesn't feel forced like it kind of did in WoT), and fantastic world-building, with tons of detailed and interesting magic systems. Sanderson also writes fantastic, plausible, and detailed battle scenes that actually make use of the clear and ordered rules of his magic system too, which is a huge plus. As icing on the cake, he puts out books really quickly, not like SOME authors I could have named.

[batcaver]

What's really exciting about Sanderson is that each book he has released has gotten noticeably better as he has matured as an author. I think The Way of Kings, his latest, is at least as good as anything Jordan ever wrote. Better probably (certainly better than the Eye of the World--Jordan's initial WoT offering). He has excellent pacing, compelling characters and dangerous villains who experience real growth (which doesn't feel forced like it kind of did in WoT), and fantastic world-building, with tons of detailed and interesting magic systems. Sanderson also writes fantastic, plausible, and detailed battle scenes that actually make use of the clear and ordered rules of his magic system too, which is a huge plus. As icing on the cake, he puts out books really quickly, not like SOME authors I could have named.

 

I'd have to disagree with most of that. Since I thought TGS was pretty good, all things considered, I figured I'd give Way of Kings a shot. I had a pretty hard time with it, and I ended up putting it down incomplete. The first fight scene between the two shard sword guys read like it was the choreography of a video game fight. It totally lacked dimension to me, and Sanderson's affinity for Magic (the card game)seemed very obvious in it. I can definitely understand why the book would appeal to avid fantasy readers, but for myself, everything about the book seemed more geared toward an 11 - 14 year old person. Maybe it was meant to be.

 

The thing that keeps me coming back to WOT is the fact that, despite it being fantasy, that never felt like the point. It seemed like Jordan had an intricate story to tell containing many fantasy archetypes, but the story wasn't built around them or limited to them. I could definitely see him having written a few non-fiction war history books, or period-piece fiction. Sanderson I can really only picture writing exactly what he does write. That being said, I don't mean it as an insult. I enjoyed both TGS and TOM, and am appreciative that he's written them.

[JordanRutherford]

I prefer Robert Jordan's writing by a huge margin personally, I remember starting into The Gathering Storm and I thought ot myself.. oh no.. this is so different. But it turned out after the prologue when chapter one bagan and familar characters came back into things, it was all fine.

 

The one thing I will give Sanderson is this, he writes wonderful dialogue. Robert Jordan wrote beautiful scenes full of imagery, but Brandon Sanderson's dialogue is simply wonderful.

[EvilSocrates]

What's really exciting about Sanderson is that each book he has released has gotten noticeably better as he has matured as an author. I think The Way of Kings, his latest, is at least as good as anything Jordan ever wrote. Better probably (certainly better than the Eye of the World--Jordan's initial WoT offering). He has excellent pacing, compelling characters and dangerous villains who experience real growth (which doesn't feel forced like it kind of did in WoT), and fantastic world-building, with tons of detailed and interesting magic systems. Sanderson also writes fantastic, plausible, and detailed battle scenes that actually make use of the clear and ordered rules of his magic system too, which is a huge plus. As icing on the cake, he puts out books really quickly, not like SOME authors I could have named.

 

I'd have to disagree with most of that. Since I thought TGS was pretty good, all things considered, I figured I'd give Way of Kings a shot. I had a pretty hard time with it, and I ended up putting it down incomplete. The first fight scene between the two shard sword guys read like it was the choreography of a video game fight. It totally lacked dimension to me, and Sanderson's affinity for Magic (the card game)seemed very obvious in it. I can definitely understand why the book would appeal to avid fantasy readers, but for myself, everything about the book seemed more geared toward an 11 - 14 year old person. Maybe it was meant to be.

 

The thing that keeps me coming back to WOT is the fact that, despite it being fantasy, that never felt like the point. It seemed like Jordan had an intricate story to tell containing many fantasy archetypes, but the story wasn't built around them or limited to them. I could definitely see him having written a few non-fiction war history books, or period-piece fiction. Sanderson I can really only picture writing exactly what he does write. That being said, I don't mean it as an insult. I enjoyed both TGS and TOM, and am appreciative that he's written them.

 

That's interesting, as you correctly guessed, I am an avid fantasy reader. Based on that fairly extensive reading, I think Robert Jordan is more archetypal of the genre of epic fantasy than the Way of Kings. The Way of Kings has almost a sci-fi feel to me, actually. Robert Jordan is like an impressionist. It doesn't matter if the actions of the characters don't make sense, or if the magic system isn't logical or used logically by the characters, or if the fight scenes make no sense or are not described. What matters is the FEEL of the piece. Very Tolkienesque. Sanderson's work attempts to be is more rigorous. Once the ground rules are explained, he and the characters stick to them, and use them in inventive ways, just like real people would.

 

For all it's grandeur, Randland makes absolutely no sense. It's political structure, the actions of the characters--none of it. That's OK, neither did Middle Earth, but that is a hallmark of epic fantasy, as opposed to science fiction (where you can BASICALLY have magic--any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable, etc.). Sci-fi uses an otherworldly backdrop to explore neat ideas and characters. Traditional fantasy is about making a pretty backdrop as an end in itself. RJ seems very traditional in that regard. Obviously Sanderson is writing fantasy, not sci-fi, but the feel is more sci-fi: i.e. "Let's pose neat ideas (a magic or theological structure instead of certain technologies in this case) and see what kind of society would logically follow and how human characters would respond."

[Jack Shaftoe]

It doesn't matter if the actions of the characters don't make sense, or if the magic system isn't logical or used logically by the characters, or if the fight scenes make no sense or are not described. What matters is the FEEL of the piece.

 

RJ has one of the most rigid and full of rules magic system I have seen, so I think your claim is a bit off. I have only read one Sanderson book (not counting TGS and ToM) and the endless infodumping about how the magic worked really got on my nerves at one point. It was as if the characters knew I was "in their heads", so to speak, so they had to explain each and every action not just in the dialogue but in their PoVs too. Pull, Push, Pull, Pull, when you pull the weight of the object needs to be this, when you Push...People simply don't think like that all the time. I think this is generally a weakness of Sanderson, the thoughts of the characters are too neatly ordered. It does the trick with the characters I already know in WoT but with Mistborn this really bugged me. Maybe he improves that in his other books.

 

However, I think Sanderson has some weaknesses in his writing that come out in his other books as well. In my opinion, the biggest one is the way he handles romantic love in his books, which he often makes a huge theme for some reason--it seems very adolescent.

 

RJ's approach to relationship is pretty similar, I think. Both writers seem to have a penchant for describing the characters in love as if they (the characters) are thirteen or something. Certain romantic developments in ToM were quite cringe-worthy, IMO, but not much different than Elayne and Rand or Perrin and Faile.

 

Generally, I am very happy with the quality of TGS and ToM. But I don't know how much of that is due to RJ finally deciding to in crease the pace of the series and how much is due to Sanderson's influence.

[batcaver]

Hmm, I guess I can kind of see what you are saying. He does obsess over the rules of magic and the technicalities of his systems, which kind of reminds me of sci-fi in a way. I'd have to agree with the above poster though, in that I think this approach works much better for science fiction than fantasy; sci-fi being more about exploring and exaggerating potential possibilities, whereas magic/fantasy is more about creating them. Seems odd to spend so much time being technical about something that by nature is about making the impossible possible. This is how he sometimes gives me that mechanical video game feel that Robert Jordan never really had. However, if that's the kind of thing that does it for you in a book then I can see how BS would be more up your alley.

 

On another point though, Sanderson's prolific output really puts RJ to shame. Even though RJ was putting out books that barely advanced the plot in over 800+ pages it's likely that most would've been happy for the extra content if he'd written as fast as BS does. And if he'd been as organized and dedicated to communicating with his fans as Sanderson. It definitely felt to me as though he'd kind of gotten lost in his own world towards the later books. They weren't bad so much as just extremely meandering and diluted. My head is still spinning from the pace of the last two books. They're almost moving too fast now, even though I think they're just more on par with the early part of the series.

[smileyman]

I was actually a fan of Sanderson before he was picked to finish the Wheel of Time, and I love what he's done. The way I see it there are two key differences between the way Jordan wrote and the way Sanderson writes.

 

Sanderson is a detailed plotter. He'll outline everything before he starts writing, which gives every one of his books a drive that's noticeable. Jordan knows where he needs to go but not how to get there (very much like Tolkien actually). Sanderson calls it being an Architect vs being a Gardener and I think it's an apt description.

 

This leads to a couple of inevitable things. Sanderson's work feels more tightly plotted with a better sense of action and momentum, but that can come at the cost of truly emotional scenes. Jordan's approach can lead to some serious meandering around, but he can put in an emotional punch like very few authors can. The only fantasy author that comes close for me is Guy Gavriel Kay.

 

I can't imagine Sanderson writing the Gathering of Malkieri in Knife of Dreams, and that scene remains my favorite scene in all of the Wheel of Time. OTOH I can't imagine Robert Jordan being able to wrap this up in 3 books. I think he'd have always been 6 books out because he loved the world too much.

 

The other thing about Sanderson is how detailed his magic systems are. They're complex and they have rules that need to be followed and they're always interesting (even in his YA stuff). I don't get that from the Wheel of Time--the One Power is a creative way of using sorcery but that's basically what it is.

 

Regarding the Way of Kings--I thought it was one of the best fantasy books of the year and it marked a definite maturing of Brandon as an author. I think he'll be regarded as one of the best by the time he's done writing, especially if he keeps up the frenetic pace that's he's been working on, which is some 10 books and a short story in 5 years. Pretty impressive if you ask me.

[Mr Ares]

That's interesting, as you correctly guessed, I am an avid fantasy reader. Based on that fairly extensive reading, I think Robert Jordan is more archetypal of the genre of epic fantasy than the Way of Kings. The Way of Kings has almost a sci-fi feel to me, actually. Robert Jordan is like an impressionist. It doesn't matter if the actions of the characters don't make sense, or if the magic system isn't logical or used logically by the characters, or if the fight scenes make no sense or are not described. What matters is the FEEL of the piece. Very Tolkienesque. Sanderson's work attempts to be is more rigorous. Once the ground rules are explained, he and the characters stick to them, and use them in inventive ways, just like real people would.

 

For all it's grandeur, Randland makes absolutely no sense. It's political structure, the actions of the characters--none of it. That's OK, neither did Middle Earth, but that is a hallmark of epic fantasy, as opposed to science fiction (where you can BASICALLY have magic--any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable, etc.). Sci-fi uses an otherworldly backdrop to explore neat ideas and characters. Traditional fantasy is about making a pretty backdrop as an end in itself. RJ seems very traditional in that regard. Obviously Sanderson is writing fantasy, not sci-fi, but the feel is more sci-fi: i.e. "Let's pose neat ideas (a magic or theological structure instead of certain technologies in this case) and see what kind of society would logically follow and how human characters would respond."

Nothing about Randland makes sense? A bold claim - I would like to see you defend it.