10 Reasons Why I Think Brandon Sanderson is the Better Writer

[John Everyman]

They both have considerable strengths and considerable weaknesses as writers (as any writer does, of course).  Oddly enough, I find some of Robert Jordan's strengths are more notable and pronounced... but at the same time, his weaknesses are much more annoying than Sanderson's.  So, it's a toss up for me. 

 

While this is obviously not always true, I find Robert Jordan has much more colorful prose, while Brandon Sanderson writes better dialogue.  I've always found Robert Jordan's dialogue very dry; this is especially true in The Eye of the World.

 

On humor: to be quite honest, I don't feel either author particularly shines in that area.  Both have made me chuckle a few times, but sharp wit isn't something I'd be quick to attribute to either in listing their strengths. 

[Morden]

I like both, but then myself I like a variety of authors. I think I would get very frustrated if everyone wrote the same way.

 

Overall though I am very impressed with BS's works, The WoT overall is an awesome concept but you could literally cut out 1/3 of it and not really notice. But that is the price paid when a novel takes on a life of its own. If RJ knew in advance just how massive it would become I think he would have found it easier to keep it neat and tidy. This wasnt a fault on his part just an unexpected side effect.

 

BS on the other hand is really going to be judged on how the Stormlight Archive progresses, he has apparently spent the better part of a decade planning before actually committing to writing it, which is a start, but only time will tell. Personally I thought the WoK was an amazing first start, if #2 keeps up then I will hold it in high esteem just as I do WoT.

 

But overall I read far too much sci-fi along with fantasy to really care whom is better than whom. People have different tastes. Some like flowery prose that goes into massive detail, others do not. Some like good pacing and gripping action whereas others like complex character interaction.

 

 

[Jason Williams]

Sanderson isn't obsessed with necklines, so that's a point over Jordan there.

 

If somebody wrote a book with men we were supposed to like and sympathise with using force and the threat of force against people who couldn't fight back, as much as Jordan's women do, people would be burning the books in the street.

 

 

[Mr Ares]

I think Robert Jordan's first five to six books were at a level that Brandon Sanderson hasn't matched..and RJ had a lyrical beauty few writers barring Tolkien had. Sanderson is a bit more direct but I like his books, the characters are less annoying, more realistic in how they react..and he isn't afraid to kill some characters. Robert Jordan's main characters incorporate of Rand, Mat, Perrin, Egwene, Elayne, Min, Aviendha, Min and none have died. In thirteen books none have died, and that's bad for an epic-fantasy.

Aside from the fact that two of the characters you listed did die (and got better, but that's beside the point), I still don't see why people are so hung up on death. "Oh, no one has died." Well, so what? A character death is nothing more than a death, it has no inherent worth, inspires no emotion, advances no plot point, nothing. It's just an event. It can be used for any number of things, but those things are all in how it is used, and can be gained from using different tools. And the phrase "isn't afraid to kill characters" amuses me. So it's fear that's holding RJ back? Fear of what? WoT relies heavily on prophecy, and most of the major characters are bound up in prophecy. Them dying before prophecy is fulfilled is bad for the Pattern. RJ cannot simply kill off characters on a whim. Other writers will usually have more flexibility - but even then, a decision to kill a character doesn't inherently reflect boldness on an authors part (given how common it is now, surely the braver choice is to buck the trend by not killing anyone?), but usually a plan. You are telling a story, you need to get from A to Z, passing through various other points on the way. If the best way to get to Z is to kill someone, then it doesn't require a brave or fearless author to do it. Because pretty much all of them do it already. Is Sanderson particularly brave as an author? I don't really think so. What risks does he take? Compare with Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen - huge, a vast cast of characters, and so few of them willing to actually explain what the hell is going on (many of them being too busy contemplating their navels), that is rather more bold with it's storytelling. What of Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun? Narrated (unreliably, of course) in the first person by a torturer with an allegedly perfect memory, and far less accessible than Erikson, Jordan, Martin or Sanderson. Or how about Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast trilogy, which is rather different to any work of fantasy before or since? Oh, but Sanderson isn't afraid to kill characters. No. He just kills them, it doesn't require any bravery on the author's part, and so the lack of death can hardly be ascribed to fear.

Sanderson probably will end up as one of the epic-fantasy greats, certainly of this generation, and if Stormlight is anything as good as Elantris and Warbreaker, then he could definitely surpass Wheel of Time which I think derailed after the first few books. At the moment you can't call Sanderson better, but time will tell.

Consider Sanderson's contemporaries: Bakker, Martin, Erikson, Abraham, Abercrombie, Morgan. Sanderson doesn't break the mould. He's good at what he does, don't get me wrong, but with so many other talented individuals making their mark on the genre, what claim does he truly have to being among the best in his generation, let alone worthy of consideration of a place among the all time greats? In terms of prose, characterisation, theme, any area, where does he truly outshine his fellow epic fantasy writers? (In his annotations to the third Mistborn book, he talks of his desire to subvert the traditional fantasy quest by making it a waste of time, although he did give his characters something out of it, just not what they were expecting. One of the authors I listed also subverted the fantasy quest, by making it a pointless waste of time but did so in a way that didn't give his heroes any small victory out of it - the quest really was a waste of time. He also did it before Sanderson, although not by a lot. My point is that Sanderson pulls his punches in a way other authors don't, so while he an others might end up playing with similar ideas, other people are doing it far more boldly, making Sanderson look comparatively pedestrian. Who is really unafraid, then?)

[Graendals favourite]

On the killing characters thing, I think RJ could have had a longer series had he desired to include more story of pov characters who were going to die halfway to the story (or before or after). I think his story has enough of an emphasis on development on character to spend too much time on characters who did die before we found out what came of them. People have died after all, plenty of them.

[John Everyman]

 

I think Robert Jordan's first five to six books were at a level that Brandon Sanderson hasn't matched..and RJ had a lyrical beauty few writers barring Tolkien had. Sanderson is a bit more direct but I like his books, the characters are less annoying, more realistic in how they react..and he isn't afraid to kill some characters. Robert Jordan's main characters incorporate of Rand, Mat, Perrin, Egwene, Elayne, Min, Aviendha, Min and none have died. In thirteen books none have died, and that's bad for an epic-fantasy.

Aside from the fact that two of the characters you listed did die (and got better, but that's beside the point), I still don't see why people are so hung up on death. "Oh, no one has died." Well, so what? A character death is nothing more than a death, it has no inherent worth, inspires no emotion, advances no plot point, nothing. It's just an event. It can be used for any number of things, but those things are all in how it is used, and can be gained from using different tools. And the phrase "isn't afraid to kill characters" amuses me. So it's fear that's holding RJ back? Fear of what? WoT relies heavily on prophecy, and most of the major characters are bound up in prophecy. Them dying before prophecy is fulfilled is bad for the Pattern. RJ cannot simply kill off characters on a whim. Other writers will usually have more flexibility - but even then, a decision to kill a character doesn't inherently reflect boldness on an authors part (given how common it is now, surely the braver choice is to buck the trend by not killing anyone?), but usually a plan. You are telling a story, you need to get from A to Z, passing through various other points on the way. If the best way to get to Z is to kill someone, then it doesn't require a brave or fearless author to do it. Because pretty much all of them do it already. Is Sanderson particularly brave as an author? I don't really think so. What risks does he take? Compare with Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen - huge, a vast cast of characters, and so few of them willing to actually explain what the hell is going on (many of them being too busy contemplating their navels), that is rather more bold with it's storytelling. What of Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun? Narrated (unreliably, of course) in the first person by a torturer with an allegedly perfect memory, and far less accessible than Erikson, Jordan, Martin or Sanderson. Or how about Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast trilogy, which is rather different to any work of fantasy before or since? Oh, but Sanderson isn't afraid to kill characters. No. He just kills them, it doesn't require any bravery on the author's part, and so the lack of death can hardly be ascribed to fear.

>Sanderson probably will end up as one of the epic-fantasy greats, certainly of this generation, and if Stormlight is anything as good as Elantris and Warbreaker, then he could definitely surpass Wheel of Time which I think derailed after the first few books. At the moment you can't call Sanderson better, but time will tell.

Consider Sanderson's contemporaries: Bakker, Martin, Erikson, Abraham, Abercrombie, Morgan. Sanderson doesn't break the mould. He's good at what he does, don't get me wrong, but with so many other talented individuals making their mark on the genre, what claim does he truly have to being among the best in his generation, let alone worthy of consideration of a place among the all time greats? In terms of prose, characterisation, theme, any area, where does he truly outshine his fellow epic fantasy writers? (In his annotations to the third Mistborn book, he talks of his desire to subvert the traditional fantasy quest by making it a waste of time, although he did give his characters something out of it, just not what they were expecting. One of the authors I listed also subverted the fantasy quest, by making it a pointless waste of time but did so in a way that didn't give his heroes any small victory out of it - the quest really was a waste of time. He also did it before Sanderson, although not by a lot. My point is that Sanderson pulls his punches in a way other authors don't, so while he an others might end up playing with similar ideas, other people are doing it far more boldly, making Sanderson look comparatively pedestrian. Who is really unafraid, then?)

 

 

I think the appeal of Sanderson for many, myself to an extent, is the fact that he's something of a throwback, a mdoern Robert Jordan.  He's not at all like George RR Martin, Gene Wolfe, Joe Abercrombie, Scott Bakker and so on.  His goal isn't to subvert the fantasy genre, or even really to make you think.  He's just trying to tell an entertaining story set in a vibrant world, much as Robert Jordan was.  He plays it straight, basically, and I still feel that kind of storytelling has its place, as long as there's plenty of the other kind coming.

 

As for whether it's possible to be "afraid" to kill characters, I'd argue that it does require some artistic bravery.  I say this because it's all to common for a reader to lose interest if their favorite character is killed.  That said, it's very understandable why all of the Ta'veren, at least, would survive.  I think it only becomes much more noticeable, and somewhat jarring, when other characters seem to die and then come back, Thom and Moiraine serving as the most prominent examples.  I enjoyed Moiraine's rescue as much as anyone, but to this day I feel like Thom should have stayed dead.

 

As for death having "no inherent worth, inspires no emotion, advances no plot point, nothing", well, that's obvious.  There's no such thing as a literary or storytelling technique that is guaranteed to enhance the quality of a story or inspire emotion.  It is all about execution.  Killing prominent characters seemingly on a whim can come off as gratuitous.  It can also give the illusion that the stakes are higher, make the reader genuinely curious on who will survive, though depending on how it's done, it can easily be seen as a waste of a good character. 

 

But I would agree that the decision to kill characters doesn't necessarily make one brave.  I think leaving all the characters mostly intact in WOT works.  Similarly, I think George RR Martin's body count works for the kind of story he's trying to tell.  There's really no right or wrong way to do it. 

[Azrayne]

 

10. World building –

 

I disagree with this one,, Sanderson's settings feel rather bland and unimersive, by comparison.

 

 

 

9. Pacing –

 

Definitely.

 

 

8. Systems of magic –

 

Disagree again, I prefer RJ's approach, which actually inspires some mystery and awe. I hate the trend in modern fantasy where they feel like every tiny little detail has to be explained and available to the reader. We certainly don't understand everything about how the world works now, and we understood even less in the time periods equivalent to most fantasy settings. It just robs the series of character.

 

That said, I do feel that RJ's magic system is very overpowering, which forces the series to ramp up the scale of conflict artificially and creates a huge barrier between those who can and those who cannot use it

 

 

 

7. Artificial tension .

 

6. Character

 

5. Deaths

 

4. Writer idiosyncrasies –

 

3. Character development –

 

Yep.

 

 

 

2. Scope

 

Not sure this is really an argument either way.

 

Either way, I think RJ made a much greater contribution to the genre as a whole, although Sanderson is still rather early in his career.

[stgermaine]

Brave man, posting this here. I personally agree, but this group is a bit...biased?

[muddasssir]

I generally get very abusive when someone writes something dumb like this, but since its only two days to AMoL release. I will let it pass this once. Come JAN 8 if this thread is stiil around you can bet a detailed answer will be in offing.

[Suttree]

Consider Sanderson's contemporaries: Bakker, Martin, Erikson, Abraham, Abercrombie, Morgan. Sanderson doesn't break the mould. He's good at what he does, don't get me wrong, but with so many other talented individuals making their mark on the genre, what claim does he truly have to being among the best in his generation, let alone worthy of consideration of a place among the all time greats? In terms of prose, characterisation, theme, any area, where does he truly outshine his fellow epic fantasy writers? (In his annotations to the third Mistborn book, he talks of his desire to subvert the traditional fantasy quest by making it a waste of time, although he did give his characters something out of it, just not what they were expecting. One of the authors I listed also subverted the fantasy quest, by making it a pointless waste of time but did so in a way that didn't give his heroes any small victory out of it - the quest really was a waste of time. He also did it before Sanderson, although not by a lot. My point is that Sanderson pulls his punches in a way other authors don't, so while he an others might end up playing with similar ideas, other people are doing it far more boldly, making Sanderson look comparatively pedestrian. Who is really unafraid, then?)

Indeed. The bar has been raised a great deal in modern fantasy and Sanderson has not kept pace with a few of those other authors. Sadly I think in some ways his work on the WoT may have actually hampered his growth. He has a great deal of work to do with Stormlight to be considered in the upper tier for the present let alone the all time greats.

[Graendals favourite]

Sorry, I have not read modern fantasy at all, I'm about to finish Dance with Dragons, then reread Fortress in the Eye of Time by C.J.Cherryh(read 15 years ago). But what is the bar? Is it toward mainstream literature, or greater worldbuilding, where? I hope not toward some philosophical scopes such as modern nihilishm(Of course I'm getting aMoL on tuesday, barring the book shop ruin my order somehow.)

[wotfan4472]

I find that WOT by RJ is way better than Tolkien's work having read the LOTR trilogy in its entirety.

 

In The Return of the King, I found that Tolkien was too obvious in directing the his world; he was actually worse at this to me than Brandon is, although that he is doing a good job so far.

 

I also find that I prefer WOT to ASOIAF,having read only the first book, mostly because I found it to be too brutal for my taste. As for that prologue: the Dragonmount prologue is the best in literature I have ever read, in my opinion, blowing out any other opening scene in a novel series. It made you want to RAFO, lol.

[Mr Ares]

 

 

I think Robert Jordan's first five to six books were at a level that Brandon Sanderson hasn't matched..and RJ had a lyrical beauty few writers barring Tolkien had. Sanderson is a bit more direct but I like his books, the characters are less annoying, more realistic in how they react..and he isn't afraid to kill some characters. Robert Jordan's main characters incorporate of Rand, Mat, Perrin, Egwene, Elayne, Min, Aviendha, Min and none have died. In thirteen books none have died, and that's bad for an epic-fantasy.

Aside from the fact that two of the characters you listed did die (and got better, but that's beside the point), I still don't see why people are so hung up on death. "Oh, no one has died." Well, so what? A character death is nothing more than a death, it has no inherent worth, inspires no emotion, advances no plot point, nothing. It's just an event. It can be used for any number of things, but those things are all in how it is used, and can be gained from using different tools. And the phrase "isn't afraid to kill characters" amuses me. So it's fear that's holding RJ back? Fear of what? WoT relies heavily on prophecy, and most of the major characters are bound up in prophecy. Them dying before prophecy is fulfilled is bad for the Pattern. RJ cannot simply kill off characters on a whim. Other writers will usually have more flexibility - but even then, a decision to kill a character doesn't inherently reflect boldness on an authors part (given how common it is now, surely the braver choice is to buck the trend by not killing anyone?), but usually a plan. You are telling a story, you need to get from A to Z, passing through various other points on the way. If the best way to get to Z is to kill someone, then it doesn't require a brave or fearless author to do it. Because pretty much all of them do it already. Is Sanderson particularly brave as an author? I don't really think so. What risks does he take? Compare with Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen - huge, a vast cast of characters, and so few of them willing to actually explain what the hell is going on (many of them being too busy contemplating their navels), that is rather more bold with it's storytelling. What of Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun? Narrated (unreliably, of course) in the first person by a torturer with an allegedly perfect memory, and far less accessible than Erikson, Jordan, Martin or Sanderson. Or how about Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast trilogy, which is rather different to any work of fantasy before or since? Oh, but Sanderson isn't afraid to kill characters. No. He just kills them, it doesn't require any bravery on the author's part, and so the lack of death can hardly be ascribed to fear.

>Sanderson probably will end up as one of the epic-fantasy greats, certainly of this generation, and if Stormlight is anything as good as Elantris and Warbreaker, then he could definitely surpass Wheel of Time which I think derailed after the first few books. At the moment you can't call Sanderson better, but time will

tell.

Consider Sanderson's contemporaries: Bakker, Martin, Erikson, Abraham, Abercrombie, Morgan. Sanderson doesn't break the mould. He's good at what he does, don't get me wrong, but with so many other talented individuals making their mark on the genre, what claim does he truly have to being among the best in his generation, let alone worthy of consideration of a place among the all time greats? In terms of prose, characterisation, theme, any area, where does he truly outshine his fellow epic fantasy writers? (In his annotations to the third Mistborn book, he talks of his desire to subvert the traditional fantasy quest by making it a waste of time, although he did give his characters something out of it, just not what they were expecting. One of the authors I listed also subverted the fantasy quest, by making it a pointless waste of time but did so in a way that didn't give his heroes any small victory out of it - the quest really was a waste of time. He also did it before Sanderson, although not by a lot. My point is that Sanderson pulls his punches in a way other authors don't, so while he an others might end up playing with similar ideas, other people are doing it far more boldly, making Sanderson look comparatively pedestrian. Who is really unafraid, then?)

 

I think the appeal of Sanderson for many, myself to an extent, is the fact that he's something of a throwback, a modern Robert Jordan.  He's not at all like George RR Martin, Gene Wolfe, Joe Abercrombie, Scott Bakker and so on.  His goal isn't to subvert the fantasy genre, or even really to make you think.  He's just trying to tell an entertaining story set in a vibrant world, much as Robert Jordan was.  He plays it straight, basically, and I still feel that kind of storytelling has its place, as long as there's plenty of the other kind coming.

Indeed, he does just want to tell a story, and there's nothing wrong with that. But I do think he's not going to be remembered as an all time great, nor even one of the greats of his generation, so much as he will the David Eddings or Terry Brooks (or even Robert Jordan) of his generation - popular, prolific, and fondly remembered by those whose first genre readings were Sanderson books, with even his subversions of common tropes being not too harsh, and pulling his punches. He'll be fondly remembered, but unless he steps up, I doubt any of his books will be remembered as masterworks.

As for whether it's possible to be "afraid" to kill characters, I'd argue that it does require some artistic bravery.  I say this because it's all to common for a reader to lose interest if their favorite character is killed.  That said, it's very understandable why all of the Ta'veren, at least, would survive.  I think it only becomes much more noticeable, and somewhat jarring, when other characters seem to die and then come back, Thom and Moiraine serving as the most prominent examples.  I enjoyed Moiraine's rescue as much as anyone, but to this day I feel like Thom should have stayed dead.

I'd say the artistic bravery of killing off characters is usually rather minor. Which authors are really afraid to kill of characters? Even hack authors are willing to do it. Usually, the most central characters aren't, or are only rarely killed before the climax, but that's because they tend to be central to the narrative. Their deaths are important plot points, or important for character development - killing them off when they still have some role to fill simply means someone else has to do it. So convenience rather than fear can leave people alive.

As for death having "no inherent worth, inspires no emotion, advances no plot point, nothing", well, that's obvious.

But it still needs to be said, because all too often people come up with claims that give the impression they believe that killing characters is something with inherent worth.

[Lavaliar]

Gotta disagree. For me, personally, BS will never be in RJ's league (he says as much himself). But to each their own.