Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

How Sanderson changed the naration


sonjaruff
 Share

Recommended Posts

But I'm getting fed up with it being hinted at by some people (not you) that we who grouse about these issues are just some sort of serial complainers who would moan about anything BS put on paper.

That's because some people get very defensive when others point out flaws in something they like. They seem to think criticism implies they are wrong to enjoy the book without reservation, and so they try to dismiss that criticism by attacking the critic. There's a pretty blatant undercurrent of that in some of the comments here.

 

+1 Very well said Sleeping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sanderson butchered these books. Props to him for completing the story, but the quality of his writing is horrid. It is especially poor when comparing it to RJ.

You make it sound like RJ was someone at the Nabokov or Faulkner level when he was nowhere close.

 

Your examples of Sanderson's "sheer laugh out loud terribleness" doesn't seem such to me at all. It's far from great, but decent enough writing.

 

The fact that you don't seem to even understand some of the examples that I pointed out leads me to conclude that you are in no position to qualify the statement that RJ is not even close to Faulkner or Nabokob as an author. Just randomly picking two famous and respected authors from history and announcing that RJ is nowhere close to them is a pretty silly way to prove your point. How about instead of trying to say RJ was not a world famous and historical author you comment on Sanderon's writing and give examples of how it is equal to Robert Jordans?

I do not think that you helped your arguement here. So, if he disagrees with your opinion of BS's writing ability, he is too stupid to be in a position to qualify his statement? Are you sure your name isn't "Terry Goodkind"?

 

So making a general statement without any supporting evidence is suddenly acceptable? The guy ignored everything I said and just announced that RJ was nowhere near some famous authors level while announcing that Sanderon's writing is "decent enough". I'm sorry, but if someone provides constructive evidence and examples of their argument and the response to that is "lolz u wrong" then the only thing I see wrong in my response was that I responded at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jordan's descriptions aren't that good. Compare them to someone who is excellent at writing evocatively and painting picture with words like Mervyn Peake or Patricia McKillip, and that's obvious.

 

Frankly, anyone who considers RJ's prose to be anything below top tier has no idea what they're talking about IMO. I have read many other authors and there are many distinct differences in style to consider, but I have yet to read an author that can paint words on the page with such a wide ranging vocabulary as RJ while maintaining such a fluid and immersive story.

Are you really saying that Jordan's prose is as good as that of writers like Gene Wolfe, McKillip, Guy Kay, Le Guin (if we sticking to fantasy only). Then I have to disagree completely. He was good, but he's simply not in the same league as the very best fantasy writers in terms of prose.

 

If you want examples of that, pick any passage of their books, it's likely to be better written than anything Jordan ever wrote. And if you are so inclined, try finding one critic of note or a respected author who consider Jordan's prose great. I will be waiting patiently. ;)

 

It seems to be a common theme to just casually backhand RJ off into the annals of "great story, mediocre author", but I think that is absolutely unfair and a complete mistake. I am not making the case that RJ was the greatest author ever to live, but I certainly am saying he would not be out of place standing in their company.

LOL. Just LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to be a common theme to just casually backhand RJ off into the annals of "great story, mediocre author", but I think that is absolutely unfair and a complete mistake. I am not making the case that RJ was the greatest author ever to live, but I certainly am saying he would not be out of place standing in their company. Assuming that we are judging the capabilities and talents of the author and not the historical significance or acceptance of their work. WoT will never be another Huckleberry Finn, but that doesn't mean that RJ couldn't have written Huck Finn as good as or better than Mark Twain.

 

While he is most definitely in that fantasy top tier, are you saying RJ has a place alongside some of the greatest authors outside of the genre? Look I love the WoT as much as anyone but that isn't even close to being true. Only counting American authors you start talking Twain or more recently McCarthy, Roth, and DeLillo and it is just an entirely different class.

 

Authors are judged by typically by their work and impact that it makes - not strictly by their ability to write and the quality of their prose. There are many elements that go into the final piece of work that determine its significance in the grand scheme of things, and sometimes the actual quality of prose and writing is near last on that list. I am saying that while WoT is not going to ever become a Huck Finn and launch RJ into the ranks of histories brilliant authors, RJ himself writes with the quality of one of the greatest authors. In many cases, his abilities as a writer (not necessarily as an author) surpass some of the most famous and greatest authors. Though if this were the only category to rank an author you'd find many other journalists, columnists, etc. that are also on that list or at the top.

 

Like I said before, RJ didn't write a Huck Finn, but if he decided one day to write Huck Finn he likely could have done so as well as or better than Twain. That is what I am trying to say.

Edited by Mark D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you really saying that Jordan's prose is as good as that of writers like Gene Wolfe, McKillip, Guy Kay, Le Guin (if we sticking to fantasy only). Then I have to disagree completely. He was good, but he's simply not in the same league as the very best fantasy writers in terms of prose.

 

I would add John Crowley to that list. Speaking in terms of prose "Little Big" is not mentioned nearly enough. Just a gorgeous book with an almost dreamlike feel.

 

RJ himself writes with the quality of one of the greatest authors. In many cases, his abilities as a writer (not necessarily as an author) surpass some of the most famous and greatest authors...

 

Like I said before, RJ didn't write a Huck Finn, but if he decided one day to write Huck Finn he likely could have done so as well as or better than Twain. That is what I am trying to say.

 

In that case, and I do not mean this in a condescending way at all, I highly suggest you take some Literature classes and expand your horizons a bit. I love RJ but you are very much overstating his abilities.

Edited by Suttree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jordan's descriptions aren't that good. Compare them to someone who is excellent at writing evocatively and painting picture with words like Mervyn Peake or Patricia McKillip, and that's obvious.

 

Frankly, anyone who considers RJ's prose to be anything below top tier has no idea what they're talking about IMO. I have read many other authors and there are many distinct differences in style to consider, but I have yet to read an author that can paint words on the page with such a wide ranging vocabulary as RJ while maintaining such a fluid and immersive story.

Are you really saying that Jordan's prose is as good as that of writers like Gene Wolfe, McKillip, Guy Kay, Le Guin (if we sticking to fantasy only). Then I have to disagree completely. He was good, but he's simply not in the same league as the very best fantasy writers in terms of prose.

 

If you want examples of that, pick any passage of their books, it's likely to be better written than anything Jordan ever wrote. And if you are so inclined, try finding one critic of note or a respected author who consider Jordan's prose great. I will be waiting patiently. ;)

 

It seems to be a common theme to just casually backhand RJ off into the annals of "great story, mediocre author", but I think that is absolutely unfair and a complete mistake. I am not making the case that RJ was the greatest author ever to live, but I certainly am saying he would not be out of place standing in their company.

LOL. Just LOL.

 

Post some excerpts from the last three and let's compare. I will not bother comparing Wolfe as he is often mentioned as one of the greatest living authors in any genre. Or maybe I should pick "any passage" from their books and compare it to anything Jordan ever wrote? I'm sure that will be a realistic comparison...I'm sure every single passage they wrote was magnificent. Grossly over exaggerate much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you really saying that Jordan's prose is as good as that of writers like Gene Wolfe, McKillip, Guy Kay, Le Guin (if we sticking to fantasy only). Then I have to disagree completely. He was good, but he's simply not in the same league as the very best fantasy writers in terms of prose.

 

I would add John Crowley to that list. Speaking in terms of prose "Little Big" is not mentioned nearly enough. Just a gorgeous book with an almost dreamlike feel.

 

RJ himself writes with the quality of one of the greatest authors. In many cases, his abilities as a writer (not necessarily as an author) surpass some of the most famous and greatest authors...

 

Like I said before, RJ didn't write a Huck Finn, but if he decided one day to write Huck Finn he likely could have done so as well as or better than Twain. That is what I am trying to say.

 

In that case, and I do not mean this in a condescending way at all, I highly suggest you take some Literature classes and expand your horizons a bit. I love RJ but you are very much overstating his abilities.

 

Fair enough, but I am finding that nearly every time I investigate another "great author" I am let down. It feels more and more like meeting a celebrity in person...you have this amazing image of them from all of the movies you've watched and then when you meet them in person you realize they are pretty much the same as everyone else. Yet somehow chance, talent, and timing all managed to come together enough to allow them to become a star. Notice how if you take away any of those three then suddenly they aren't so special anymore.

Edited by Mark D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes a good author? Surely good prose isn't enough?

What good are beautify flowing words without a good story to tell.

Some of the authors mentioned above I've read and didn't enjoy nearly as much as reading WoT.

If being a good author is making up a good story and telling it well, then RJ was among the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes a good author? Surely good prose isn't enough?

What good are beautify flowing words without a good story to tell.

Some of the authors mentioned above I've read and didn't enjoy nearly as much as reading WoT.

If being a good author is making up a good story and telling it well, then RJ was among the best.

 

For me, the second and last lines in particular sum it up for me. I've not read any of the authors that are mentioned by other authors as being superior, but I've read enough Dickens, Clemens, Poe, Hemingway, Dumas and other critically acclaimed 'masters' to know that I'd rate RJ over them. Well, at least for WOT. I've not read any of his other stuff.

 

But truly, every opinion is subjective in the end, and I don't think everyone should think as I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Post some excerpts from the last three and let's compare. I will not bother comparing Wolfe as he is often mentioned as one of the greatest living authors in any genre. Or maybe I should pick "any passage" from their books and compare it to anything Jordan ever wrote? I'm sure that will be a realistic comparison...I'm sure every single passage they wrote was magnificent. Grossly over exaggerate much?

Of course not every passage they ever wrote is magnificent. But then I wouldn't say anything Jordan wrote was magnificent or even close to that purely in terms of prose quality. I've never had the urge to reread a Jordan passage simply because it's beautifully written, which happens often when I read authors with what I consider better prose style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly she hit Rand twice. (Don't have the books to reference) Once over balefire, witch in my mind is a pretty reasonable way of teaching a new channeler the dangers of a weave that nearly unravelled the pattern. Don't forget they were in a battle situation so she could hardly sit him down and patently explain the dangers of balefire. No, the time called for a short, sharp, shock and that's what he got.

 

Slapping someone in the middle of a battle with killer fog, does not seem like a particularly good idea to me. It doesn't matter that he used balefire. She can get back to him on that after they're safe. As it it, her slap caused Rand to have his back turned to Fain.

 

 

Ok maybe Cads should of waited until after the battle, then again maybe not. Don't forget that Balefire is a forbidden weave even among the AS, and she did not know how much Rand knew of it and the danger it poses.

But whether that was the time or not is debatable.

I disagree however that her slap caused him to have his back turned while Fain sliced him. Toram was freaking out and running away, Darlin realising who Rand was, was trying put himself between Rand and Caraline.

Bottom line is, if Rand would of done what he was told and not used the power there would of been no distraction.

 

Rand messed up, that's for sure.

 

Balefire in large amounts is dangerous, but it's not like anything could have happened at that moment, so I really think her "lesson" could have waited a little.

 

Once Toram ran away he became a non-factor. Darlin only "half-moved as if to place himself between Rand and Caraline". Considering how easely Cadsuane took control of the situation to begin with, she surely could have told Darlin to worry about that later. She didn't. Instead she "picked her way across the slope" slapped Rand and tried to tell what not to do. Rand's attention was then fully on her. If she had time to do that, then she had time to settle Darlin and tell to worry about Rand later. Darlin's not a fool, he's not Toram. Cadsuane was in charge, so she should have focused on what was important, and what was important right then, was getting the hell away from the fog.

 

Overall, my view of this incident is: first Rand messed up, then Cadsuane made it worse.

 

 

Agreed Cads could of handled it better. But you can hardly blame her for not suspecting Fain was going to try to kill Rand just then.

 

Of course. I don't think she even knew who Fain was at that point. It's only through hindsight that we realise how big a mistake it was. It's always best not to take your chances though, just like it would have been best if Rand had stuck to the plan instead of letting his emotions get in the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beauty is the eye of the beholder people. There isn't an author better than someone else just because someone says so. That doesn't validate anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Post some excerpts from the last three and let's compare. I will not bother comparing Wolfe as he is often mentioned as one of the greatest living authors in any genre. Or maybe I should pick "any passage" from their books and compare it to anything Jordan ever wrote? I'm sure that will be a realistic comparison...I'm sure every single passage they wrote was magnificent. Grossly over exaggerate much?

Of course not every passage they ever wrote is magnificent. But then I wouldn't say anything Jordan wrote was magnificent or even close to that purely in terms of prose quality. I've never had the urge to reread a Jordan passage simply because it's beautifully written, which happens often when I read authors with what I consider better prose style.

 

Seriously David? Nothing he wrote?

 

The two that immediately pop into my mind are Weilan Aldragorans' POV in KOD 20 and the Blowing of the Horn in TGH. You didn't find even those two as beautifully and magnificently written? For me, there are dozens more examples. Once again, subjective opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beauty is the eye of the beholder people. There isn't an author better than someone else just because someone says so. That doesn't validate anything.

 

So what does validate an opinion then? Nobe/Pulitzer/awards, critical acclaim, NY Times author rankings? It is a very simple fact that RJ doesn't rate with the best outside of genre. People seem to be confusing the issue a bit. Just because I personally enjoy reading RJ better than say Thomas Pynchon, doesn't make him the more skilled author.

Edited by Suttree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beauty is the eye of the beholder people. There isn't an author better than someone else just because someone says so. That doesn't validate anything.

 

So what does validate an opinion then? Nobe/Pulitzer/awards, critical acclaim, NY Times author rankings? It is a very simple fact that RJ doesn't rate with the best outside of genre. People seem to be confusing the issue a bit. Just because I personally enjoy reading RJ better than say Thomas Pynchon, doesn't make him the more skilled author.

 

 

That might be because of the attitude towards fantasy authors, who in certain circles are dismissed as dreamers and their work looked down on in scorn. I know Tolkin suffered from that sort of negativity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beauty is the eye of the beholder people. There isn't an author better than someone else just because someone says so. That doesn't validate anything.

 

So what does validate an opinion then? Nobe/Pulitzer/awards, critical acclaim, NY Times author rankings? It is a very simple fact that RJ doesn't rate with the best outside of genre. People seem to be confusing the issue a bit. Just because I personally enjoy reading RJ better than say Thomas Pynchon, doesn't make him the more skilled author.

 

 

That might be because of the attitude towards fantasy authors, who in certain circles are dismissed as dreamers and their work looked down on in scorn. I know Tolkin suffered from that sort of negativity.

 

There could be some of that going on and assuredly there have been authors treated unfairly because of it. Despite that however some fantasy novels do receive such acclaim. One example for instance off the top of my head is Harold Bloom calling John Crowley's "Little Big" a masterpiece. I feel for the most part we are in a time where people are much more open minded. Heck Susanna Clarke almost won The Booker for "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell", Cormac McCarthy won the Pulitzer in 07 for what was essentially a SF book in "The Road". RJ has been on enough NY Times Best Sellers lists and has more than enough exposure to be on the critics radar.

Edited by Suttree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion reminds me of Stephen King's speech on the relationship between "literary fiction" and "popular fiction" (starts about halfway down).

 

I'll just repeat something I said a bit earlier: The reason I like the Sanderson WoT books is that I never much liked RJ's writing in the first place. It was fine. I wasn't offended. But that wasn't what I was reading for. I like the story and the world and the characters, not the writing style. So if we've got the same story and world and characters within the original plan of the series, but a different writing style, I'm happy as long as the new writing style doesn't bother me any more than the original.

 

The problem with fanfiction, usually, is that it doesn't fit at all with the author's conception of his world and characters. Sanderson's writing is significantly constrained by RJ's intentions, and he's a damn sight better than your average fanfic writer. Those two factors together make these good books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sanderson's writing is significantly constrained by RJ's intentions,

 

I think this is a very important point people need to keep in mind. Not only was the revision process too short but Brandon has very limited space in which to make a large number of things RJ has outlined happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There could be some of that going on and assuredly there have been authors treated unfairly because of it. Despite that however some fantasy novels do receive such acclaim. One example for instance off the top of my head is Harold Bloom calling John Crowley's "Little Big" a masterpiece. RJ has been on enough NY Times Best Sellers lists and has more than enough exposure to be on the critics radar.

 

I'm certainly not a conspiracy theorist, but I do try to investigate everything to the best of my ability. I placed part of your quote in bold because I want to say that I think it goes much deeper than attitudes against fantasy, or any other genre. Many awards are not based on objective opinion, in fact very few are. Many awards can easily be dismissed as being chosen simply because they address a particular political or social agenda that the award committee endorses or otherwise stands behind. I find it likely that most of those chosen for the award are very well written, but perhaps they weren't the 'best' even so.

 

Likewise, I don't base my decisions by what critics write about someone else's work. I like to decide for myself.

 

Hypothetically, if two people were to write two books addressing opposite ends of a debate, but were truly equally well written, which would you or any other human choose? The answer is always the one that argues for the opinion you side with. Human nature.

 

Validation, when opinions are concerned do not come from awards. Awards are still subjectively chosen, because taste is subjective.

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight or even offend with my points. I hope I didn't come across as though I was.

Edited by 2RiversFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with 2riversfan out of the books Sutree listed above I have only read, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell and hated it.

So even though it is supposedly critically acclaimed, its not my cup of tea and no matter how many arty farty lit critics try to tell me otherwise will never rank anywhere near WoT.

 

I'm no authority on great writing, but have been reading Fantasy/syfi a long time, so I'd ask if fantasy authors are not snubbed why no honours for, Feist, Herbert, Gemmell and Wolfe. It seems to me that certain books get the top awards because of the way there written(which might not be to everyone's liking, but is lapped up by the arty types) and not for strength of the story, if so RJ would be among that list mentioned above(by Sutree). I'm not interested in what a few elitist think, how many of the above authors have sites like DM.

Edited by damandred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion reminds me of Stephen King's speech on the relationship between "literary fiction" and "popular fiction" (starts about halfway down).

 

I'll just repeat something I said a bit earlier: The reason I like the Sanderson WoT books is that I never much liked RJ's writing in the first place. It was fine. I wasn't offended. But that wasn't what I was reading for. I like the story and the world and the characters, not the writing style. So if we've got the same story and world and characters within the original plan of the series, but a different writing style, I'm happy as long as the new writing style doesn't bother me any more than the original.

 

The problem with fanfiction, usually, is that it doesn't fit at all with the author's conception of his world and characters. Sanderson's writing is significantly constrained by RJ's intentions, and he's a damn sight better than your average fanfic writer. Those two factors together make these good books.

 

Thanks for pointing out that link to Stephen King's acceptance speech. That was an interesting read, and I see the parallels between it and the arguments here that you mentioned. He clearly felt that there was an aversion to giving an award for his works as a 'popular writer'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for people acting "out of character," I can only surmise that what people are doing in the Sanderson books are exactly what RJ wanted them to do. So Cadsuane has been described as remarkably adaptable. That's great, but everyone has a breaking point, no matter how patient or old you are. And to me, I felt Cadsuane hit her breaking point with the whole Tam deal. I didn't find it out of character at all, it didn't make me pause and exclaim "that's not what RJ would do!" and if it's there in the published book, even after Harriet and Team Jordan have done their thing, then it must have been what RJ wanted. He was detailed enough in the actual writing, I'm sure he was detailed enough in the notes he left when it came to all the important plot points, of which this was one.
That's rather a stretch. RJ left a lot of notes about what was to happen, but he didn't fill in all the details. After Harriet and Team Jordan have done their thing, what we are left with is not what RJ would have wanted, what we are left with is at best their best guess as to what he would have wanted - their attempt at a faithful interpretation of his vision. That's not quite the same thing. And of course, we don't necessarily end up with the best case scenario. Had they taken more time, they might have been able to iron out some of the kinks, but they didn't. They put out a rushed product, and quality has, at times, suffered accordingly. Sanderson is going to interpret the characters differently, and lacking a layer of polish some of those differences will become all the more noticeable.

 

Well, kind of the point I was making is that neither you nor I are Brandon Sanderson, or RJ or Harriet. How do you what details he did or did not leave? You didn't have to write the book. Unless you are there, looking at all his notes, listening to the recordings he left, how do you know what had to be filled in? People are just making assumptions based on what they don't like about the Sanderson books. It's easy to point to something you don't like about the new books and say, "oh Sanderson must have done that, RJ never would have." How do you know what RJ would never have done? Assuming that spending more time on them would create a better product isn't necessarily true either.

 

RJ knew he was dying, so I would wager he left notes about all the important things that he wanted done, and the way Brandon talks about it, he did all he could to make sure all of RJ's material made it in with as little interference on his part.

 

This discussion reminds me of Stephen King's speech on the relationship between "literary fiction" and "popular fiction" (starts about halfway down).

 

I'll just repeat something I said a bit earlier: The reason I like the Sanderson WoT books is that I never much liked RJ's writing in the first place. It was fine. I wasn't offended. But that wasn't what I was reading for. I like the story and the world and the characters, not the writing style. So if we've got the same story and world and characters within the original plan of the series, but a different writing style, I'm happy as long as the new writing style doesn't bother me any more than the original.

 

The problem with fanfiction, usually, is that it doesn't fit at all with the author's conception of his world and characters. Sanderson's writing is significantly constrained by RJ's intentions, and he's a damn sight better than your average fanfic writer. Those two factors together make these good books.

 

Good post. That's pretty much the difference between myself and many of the others in this thread... I haven't been reading WoT for 20 years because of the writing style, I've been reading it for the story. Yes, style is important to me, in so much as it doesn't get in the way of the story - and sometimes it can really enhance the experience... Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell is a good example, the story was okay but the writing style and feel made it that much better. I thought that was a great book. For WoT, in my opinion the style got in the way around books 9 and 10. I'm perfectly happy with the Sanderson novels, primarily because they drive the plot much more than RJ's.

Edited by Crowl Rife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for people acting "out of character," I can only surmise that what people are doing in the Sanderson books are exactly what RJ wanted them to do. So Cadsuane has been described as remarkably adaptable. That's great, but everyone has a breaking point, no matter how patient or old you are. And to me, I felt Cadsuane hit her breaking point with the whole Tam deal. I didn't find it out of character at all, it didn't make me pause and exclaim "that's not what RJ would do!" and if it's there in the published book, even after Harriet and Team Jordan have done their thing, then it must have been what RJ wanted. He was detailed enough in the actual writing, I'm sure he was detailed enough in the notes he left when it came to all the important plot points, of which this was one.
That's rather a stretch. RJ left a lot of notes about what was to happen, but he didn't fill in all the details. After Harriet and Team Jordan have done their thing, what we are left with is not what RJ would have wanted, what we are left with is at best their best guess as to what he would have wanted - their attempt at a faithful interpretation of his vision. That's not quite the same thing. And of course, we don't necessarily end up with the best case scenario. Had they taken more time, they might have been able to iron out some of the kinks, but they didn't. They put out a rushed product, and quality has, at times, suffered accordingly. Sanderson is going to interpret the characters differently, and lacking a layer of polish some of those differences will become all the more noticeable.

 

Well, kind of the point I was making is that neither you nor I are Brandon Sanderson, or RJ or Harriet. How do you what details he did or did not leave? You didn't have to write the book. Unless you are there, looking at all his notes, listening to the recordings he left, how do you know what had to be filled in? People are just making assumptions based on what they don't like about the Sanderson books. It's easy to point to something you don't like about the new books and say, "oh Sanderson must have done that, RJ never would have." How do you know what RJ would never have done? Assuming that spending more time on them would create a better product isn't necessarily true either.

 

RJ knew he was dying, so I would wager he left notes about all the important things that he wanted done, and the way Brandon talks about it, he did all he could to make sure all of RJ's material made it in with as little interference on his part.

Brandon has also mentioned that there are holes. The notes might say what has to happen, but they don't say how. They might give and end point, but not how to get there. So I don't know what all the gaps he had to fill are, but I do know that there were gaps. That Sanderson did have to put things together. Interpret character motivations. Also, no-one is claiming that taking more time automatically leads to a better book, only that in this case things were rushed, and that had more time been taken they could have dealt with some of the problems. Saying "RJ would definitely have approved of the way things are done" is just as much a mistake as "RJ would never do it like that".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion reminds me of Stephen King's speech on the relationship between "literary fiction" and "popular fiction" (starts about halfway down).

 

I'll just repeat something I said a bit earlier: The reason I like the Sanderson WoT books is that I never much liked RJ's writing in the first place. It was fine. I wasn't offended. But that wasn't what I was reading for. I like the story and the world and the characters, not the writing style. So if we've got the same story and world and characters within the original plan of the series, but a different writing style, I'm happy as long as the new writing style doesn't bother me any more than the original.

 

The problem with fanfiction, usually, is that it doesn't fit at all with the author's conception of his world and characters. Sanderson's writing is significantly constrained by RJ's intentions, and he's a damn sight better than your average fanfic writer. Those two factors together make these good books.

 

 

Thanks for providing SK' speech, it said what I was thinking without my clumsy rambling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with 2riversfan out of the books Sutree listed above I have only read, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell and hated it.

So even though it is supposedly critically acclaimed, its not my cup of tea and no matter how many arty farty lit critics try to tell me otherwise will never rank anywhere near WoT.

 

I'm no authority on great writing, but have been reading Fantasy/syfi a long time, so I'd ask if fantasy authors are not snubbed why no honours for, Feist, Herbert, Gemmell and Wolfe. It seems to me that certain books get the top awards because of the way there written(which might not be to everyone's liking, but is lapped up by the arty types) and not for strength of the story, if so RJ would be among that list mentioned above(by Sutree).

 

These posts are just serving to back up the point I made earlier, the comments from you and 2riversfan say a lot about personnel preference and very little about RJ's skill as a writer. I made it quite clear that I prefer reading RJ to Pynchon, but it in no way means he is the more talented author. There are a number of things that go in to judging someone's work of which critical acclaim(Herbert & Wolfe both had their share) and awards are just one part. I gave those answers in relation to someone asking what "validates" an author. Making dismissive comments towards "arty" types or "elitists" doesn't help your cause in the slightest. There is a reason Fantasy is looked down upon by some in the mainstream literary world, quite simply it's because the majority of it is written so shockingly bad.

 

I'm not interested in what a few elitist think, how many of the above authors have sites like DM.

 

It is a fallacy to appeal to an author's popularity in judging their skill. Stephanie Meyer has far more "sites like DM" than the WoT. Does that mean she is a better author than RJ? Look I love the WoT and he is a great Fantasy author, but let's not get carried away.

Edited by Suttree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...