What characters does Brandon Sanderson write the best?

[A. Pseudonym]

What does negative criticism have to do with respect? A diatribe is an impassioned speech--in what what does a negative impassioned speech about his work suggest that the speaker or writer lacks respect for the author? Again, I only see that your point was that anything but praising the author is a form of disrespect.

 

Unfortunately a criticism of an individual has everything to do with a lack of respect for that individual... as it suggests that that individual has failed or is flawed in some manner according to the assessment of the one doing the criticizing.

 

What you seem to be suggesting here is that one can both respect and not respect an individual at the same time... which puts me in mind of Orwellian doublethink. The efforts a mind will go to to buttress a crumbling edifice....

 

If, for example (and naming no names), an author is criticized for his treatment of another's work, is said to be flawed in his portrayal of certain character's voices... then this criticism is aimed directly at the author's ability to be an author. An author and his work are not separate; the one is an extension of the other. Every writer brings themselves to what they write - they write themselves.

It follows then that what Jordan brought of himself to his work, that made it so powerful, Sanderson lacks and cannot bring to this work.

If a piece of work is flawed then the hand that made it must be said to be the origin of that flaw.

 

Now, aside from that... every criticism is a personal attack. Because every criticism, in whatever context it's given (least of all here), highlights a flaw in the action of an other and seeks to reprimand that other for their failing. To purport that such legitimate forms of "attack" as criticism of an individual's abilities in the context of what he produces are out of bounds is to deny the discussion of the failings of Jordan's replacement.

 

Another side to this is the implication of entitlement, which is the intent of the person you were responding to above; but respect is earned, I'm afraid. Never demanded.

 

I'll convey a personal example: The last few months I've been re-reading the series for the last time. I'm currentlly on ToM.

As I read through from KoD into the tGS I found the transition of authors to be both jarring and immediately obvious.

I consider the chapters involving Mat and his Merry Band of Sidekicks (that's what they are under Sanderson) to be unreadable. I literally skipped them. I winced my way through "Mat's" explanation of women, while the drooling buffoon wearing Talmanes' skin nodded his head as if at words of great wisdom or ironic hilarity. I actually think that section was intended to be funny.

By the time I got to where I am now, a little after "Elayne" get's "Mat's" "letter", a sort of cold contempt has grown in me. Not only towards Sanderson, but to the series itself.

There is a certain, ha, responsibility to be claimed for sullying the fond memory I have for the good bit of fantasy nonsense that was tWoT.

 

But as I read through tGS and ToM I saw the glimmers of the original story as Jordan would have wrote it. His death was a real tragedy. The ending would have been amazing, if he'd lived to write it - properly. A memory of light indeed.

[SuperFade]

Also, what makes you think that those characters that many people dislike are badly written? On the contrary, I think any character that incites intense emotion in so many readers is very well written indeed. Regardless of the fact that I personally do like Elayne, and always have (in contrast, Egwene and Nynaeve grew on me with the years). Either way, I never thought any of them was just meh, which is the important bit.

 

Just bolding this part because I don't believe that this is always true. A character can incite intense dislike if they are percieved to be poorly written. Consider the extremely vitriolic hatedom that sprang up around the Eragon novels, particularly aimed at the Mary Sue title character. Or the Twilight series. Not that I'm comparing these 'novels' with Robert Jordan's work, but many people's reasons for disliking Egwene are due to the perception - rightly or wrongly - that she is a poorly written character. Apologies in advance if this turns into another Egwene War topic.

 

Anyhow, I think Brandon has done a good job with pretty much everyone except Mat. We can argue over whether or not he succeeded overall until we're all blue in the face, but the fact is that we'll never know exactly who wrote which sections of the books. Brandon has impossible expectations to live up to and he won't please everyone no matter how hard he tries, and I for one am willing to overlook his inconsistencies if it means the Wheel of Time series gets finished.

[Suttree]

What does negative criticism have to do with respect? A diatribe is an impassioned speech--in what what does a negative impassioned speech about his work suggest that the speaker or writer lacks respect for the author? Again, I only see that your point was that anything but praising the author is a form of disrespect.

 

Unfortunately a criticism of an individual has everything to do with a lack of respect for that individual... as it suggests that that individual has failed or is flawed in some manner according to the assessment of the one doing the criticizing.

 

Faulty premise.

[yoniy0]

Firstly, as a fan of the series, I disagree that a poorly written character can inspire an emotional reaction. I didn't read the Eragon series, but I would say that while a poor work of art can induce vocal expressions of derision, the criticism wouldn't be based in emotion (the desire to feel superior doesn't qualify, in my book). Case in point, I have no feelings toward Bella Swan beside thinking Kristen Stewart is cute (and no, I haven't seen the movies, but you can't hide from that pretty face); I do have some strong objections to teaching young girls that they have no intrinsic worth beyond the man they manage to attract (and keep), but that's a horse of a completely different color (side note; I'm seriously surprised no parents of a suicidal teenager have sewed Stephenie Meyer yet).

 

(The next couple of points I make as a moderator of these boards.)

Second, to all that follow, kindly do refrain from making this thread yet another analysis of Egwene's character.

 

And third, it is very much possible to critique some elements of one's work and yet not judge that work as unworthy or lacking in any merit. At the same time, it's very much possible to disdain a work of art completely and yet retain respect for the artist. Finally, it's very much possible to express such positions in a way that isn't an attack on said artist's person. If you're not sure you feel comfortable navigating these distinctions, keep a wide breadth from that line, since as you all know the Code of Conduct frowns upon that sort of thing.

[Maleshub]

What does negative criticism have to do with respect? A diatribe is an impassioned speech--in what what does a negative impassioned speech about his work suggest that the speaker or writer lacks respect for the author? Again, I only see that your point was that anything but praising the author is a form of disrespect.

 

Unfortunately a criticism of an individual has everything to do with a lack of respect for that individual... as it suggests that that individual has failed or is flawed in some manner according to the assessment of the one doing the criticizing.

 

Faulty premise.

 

What Suttree said!

 

If criticism of a person's work or writing means disrespect of said individual, then this forum is made up of a bunch of people who disrespect each other! We spend our time discussing, arguing, disagreeing, and criticizing posts and opinions!

 

What hit the mark for me in Luckers' postings on the issue is Brandon's methodology (if the term applies), which led to some "strangeness" in few characters and scenes. And we know that Brandon and Team Jordan are putting much more effort in avoiding the same mistakes this time around.

 

Another thing is that WoT is a 22-year old project with a dedicated fan base who've been given a generation's time to read, re-read, build affinity, and even memorize the story. The fans have a strong sense or taste or feel or even affinity with the characters. We've come to know them very well and can tell if they're "different."

[Luckers]

Suttree and Theodril have basically said it, A. Pseudonym. You can critique a work without disrespecting the creator. Indeed, the act of criticism itself is, in some ways, an act of respect.

[A. Pseudonym]

Faulty premise.

 

I don't really have anything to say to this. A premise is a statement followed by reasoning accounting for that statement, which is what I gave.

 

To refute that you will need to provide the same. "Nuh-uh" isn't enough.

 

What Suttree said!

 

If criticism of a person's work or writing means disrespect of said individual, then this forum is made up of a bunch of people who disrespect each other! We spend our time discussing, arguing, disagreeing, and criticizing posts and opinions!

 

It might make you feel uncomfortable about yourself and others to realize that neither you nor they are universally -respected- all the time. Such is life.

 

Suttree and Theodril have basically said it, A. Pseudonym. You can critique a work without disrespecting the creator. Indeed, the act of criticism itself is, in some ways, an act of respect.

 

No, you can't. Because as I said to criticize is to highlight and comment upon a perceived flaw in an other... implying that that other is imperfect compared to an ideal.

 

In this case the ideal is a standard of writing and the subject is an author whose ability falls below that standard.

Respect on the other hand is a form of intimidation, as it is a display of power of some sort in the one respected towards those doing the respecting. In this way for example an intelligent man can win the respect of his peers by intimidating others with the power of his mind through displays of reasoning that they themselves are perhaps incapable of. Lack of power therefore entails a loss of respect as you present yourself as weak and incapable in comparison to others, resulting in contempt.

 

But lets move off Sanderson for a moment and pander to a more level playing field of criticism and disrespect, if you will. ;)

Jordan's worst fault was his verbosity. What he could convey in one sentence he chose to stretch out into a whole paragraph and sometimes even whole chapters. What he could have written as one chapter he sometimes stretched into multiple, to the point where a whole chapter is spent where Perrin walks from his tent to the edge of his camp, or where Elayne goes horseriding, or takes a bath. Jordan littered his work with unnecessarily long-winded descriptions of the environment, costumes and repetitive mannerisms to the point that when certain characters appeared it is possible to reason out the checklist he had beside him at the time. Often this repetitive checklist-based description is mistaken for excellent world-building or character-construction. It's neither. Jordan never understood the saying that less is more. To him, quantity always trumped quality.

But because he took so long writing, he died before he got to finish it.

I could also go into his notions of gender politics and what it suggests about his upbringing, but that's a can of worms for this kind of forum, so I'll demur.

 

Now lets reason this out: I respect Jordans ability to craft a world and characters and drop foreshadowing everywhere to the point where the story becomes a sort of grand puzzle to figure out..... and yet the man is also long-winded and indulges in padding in order to lengthen his books and therefore extend the cash-cow as far as possible. Too far in this instance....

To me it is a simple case of the former outweighing the latter, meaning that his redeeming qualities are such that one can forgive or overlook the flaws. But in Sanderson's case I find no former to outweigh the latter. It is not a case of one iota of respect canceling out a mountain of disrespect. I have no respect for Sanderson. Because, as I said, I find so much to criticize in his work and by extension him as an author and consequently as an individual. Because, as I said, a writer brings himself to his work; he writes himself.

What Sanderson brings is a mess of American nerd cliches; a resentment towards authority figures and strong personalities; a sense of humour which is, to be generous, blunt; a lack of experience with life that leaves him unable to sympathize with certain types of personalities and therefore unable to write their perspectives convincingly; a blindness to the concept of "show don't tell"; and the excessive use of the word "tempest". I said before that he was a boy and I meant that literally, not as an insult, but as an expression of how I measure him as being rather undeveloped as an individual and how this reflects upon his work.

[Luckers]

Faulty premise.

 

I don't really have anything to say to this. A premise is a statement followed by reasoning accounting for that statement, which is what I gave.

 

To refute that you will need to provide the same. "Nuh-uh" isn't enough.

 

 

Suttree is actually correct--your premise, or if you will, your 'statement', is inherently faulty, hence the issue in responding to the logic you offer to support it. Specifically, your entire post is about linking the commentary on Brandon's work with commentary on Brandon himself, which is something I'd debate, but for all that is irrelevant to the question at hand because commentary on either, even negative, can be done respectfully.

 

Hence the reason your premise is faulty. Whether the statement you made is true or not, it bears no merit on the question of whether criticism and respect are mutually exclusive.

[safwd]

And i am glad that i am not a Lit major so i dont have to see all this "poor writing" that Brandon was doing.

 

I'm not a lit major. I've never studied literature in my life, and have no intention of doing so. Personally, I find proper literature over polished and boring--though if that's your bag, I've no problem with it.

 

That being said there is a vast difference between not over polishing something, and a work which is under polished, and it does not take a degree to detect that difference.

 

Didnt mean you Luckers. And wasnt calling out anyone, I am actually glad i dont see all the flaws some on here to do say they are lit majors see.

[safwd]

Suttree and Theodril have basically said it, A. Pseudonym. You can critique a work without disrespecting the creator. Indeed, the act of criticism itself is, in some ways, an act of respect.

 

If it is constructive.

If you just say "This is garbage" or "This Sucks" or "He destroyed every character" then it is not the criticism you are speaking of. And there is a bit of that here as well.

[Luckers]

Indeed, nor is such an argument respectful of Brandon.

[TristanWebb]

Suttree and Theodril have basically said it, A. Pseudonym. You can critique a work without disrespecting the creator. Indeed, the act of criticism itself is, in some ways, an act of respect.

 

If it is constructive.

If you just say "This is garbage" or "This Sucks" or "He destroyed every character" then it is not the criticism you are speaking of. And there is a bit of that here as well.

But a lot of that is because the people have already done the critiquing years ago. You cannot expect people to continually provide constructive feedback every time someone comes around here bringing up a topic that has been beaten to death by them. The topic is 'what characters does Brandon Sanderson write the best', not 'hi, my name is Brandon Sanderson and I would like some feedback on how I could improve my understanding of certain characters'.

 

There is no real need for people to provide constructive criticism here, BS tends to avoid the fan sites I have heard, which is probably good for his sanity. He has finished his first draft, massive rewrites based on this are unlikely. No one here is saying he needs to be shot for butchering the series, just that their interpretation of characters wasn't in line with what a new author's was and that they feel his prose does not quite measure up to one of the gods of fantasy writing.

[safwd]

Suttree and Theodril have basically said it, A. Pseudonym. You can critique a work without disrespecting the creator. Indeed, the act of criticism itself is, in some ways, an act of respect.

 

If it is constructive.

If you just say "This is garbage" or "This Sucks" or "He destroyed every character" then it is not the criticism you are speaking of. And there is a bit of that here as well.

But a lot of that is because the people have already done the critiquing years ago. You cannot expect people to continually provide constructive feedback every time someone comes around here bringing up a topic that has been beaten to death by them. The topic is 'what characters does Brandon Sanderson write the best', not 'hi, my name is Brandon Sanderson and I would like some feedback on how I could improve my understanding of certain characters'.

 

There is no real need for people to provide constructive criticism here, BS tends to avoid the fan sites I have heard, which is probably good for his sanity. He has finished his first draft, massive rewrites based on this are unlikely. No one here is saying he needs to be shot for butchering the series, just that their interpretation of characters wasn't in line with what a new author's was and that they feel his prose does not quite measure up to one of the gods of fantasy writing.

 

But let us not forget that one of the gods of fantasy writing made Perrin dang near unreadable. Introduced the character Faile so most readers would have a character they all hated equally and made nearly every woman a know it all B****.

I love the guy and his writing but it isnt like his characters were all golden, i freaking hated Elayne from day one.

[A. Pseudonym]

Suttree is actually correct--your premise, or if you will, your 'statement', is inherently faulty, hence the issue in responding to the logic you offer to support it. Specifically, your entire post is about linking the commentary on Brandon's work with commentary on Brandon himself, which is something I'd debate, but for all that is irrelevant to the question at hand because commentary on either, even negative, can be done respectfully.

 

Hence the reason your premise is faulty. Whether the statement you made is true or not, it bears no merit on the question of whether criticism and respect are mutually exclusive.

 

My position is that a writer writes himself and his abilities are expressed through his work and that the quality of that work is determined by his abilities. That's premise 1. Premise 2 is a separate value-judgement performed by me against Sanderson based upon premise 1's Sanderson being compared to the standard of ability displayed by Jordan; since the series is originally his, he defines this standard.

 

This is the core of my point: that Sanderson damages my appreciation of the series because he cannot recreate it's essence. He cannot do this because he lacks the ability. For me to say that he lacks means I disrespect him for this lack. To say that he lacks in this way is a criticism of him as a writer and is also a personal attack, as you have defined it, at his ability as a writer.

 

I know you want to sit on that fence post, but I'm not going to.

 

If he was a good writer he would have changed the WoT in his own way, made it his own, reforged it into something different but just as good. He did not. He assembled notes. That's it.

[safwd]

So let me get his straight, Brandon could not write the story as his own nor could he write it to the caliper Jordan wrote it at.

 

1. If he would have wrote it as his own he would have been destroyed. The series was way to far along for that, he had to finish it as close (as he could) to how RJ would have out of respect and preservation.

2. He couldnt write a story as well as a guy who had been writing it for 20 years and had probably had the characters in his head a fair amount of time longer.

 

And yes, he did pretty much write the books off of notes, because that is what they wanted him to do. That is what RJ was doing on his death bed, assembling notes for the writer who was going to finish it.

 

I dont have the luxury of talking to Brandon as Luckers does but from what i have read i dont think he was beating on the door trying to be the lucky guy who got to try to not screw up one of the most epic fantasy series ever.

 

There is no chance in hell that i would have done it if i were an author. This could have destroyed him as a writer, but luckily he did a pretty good job on the books so it has actually made him more popular.

[A. Pseudonym]

So let me get his straight, Brandon could not write the story as his own nor could he write it to the caliper Jordan wrote it at.

 

My point was that had he had a distinct and powerful enough manner of delivery, then he could have written Jordan's plot in a better fashion. The plot would not need to change. Style and ability, not so much the detail of events.

 

This could have destroyed him as a writer

 

No, I think it made his career. He got to stand on another guy's shoulders.

[yoniy0]

A. Pseudonym, this discussion is quite outside the scope of the thread. Also, despite my former request, you not only skirted with offensive remarks, but actually slid to the realm of personal attacks ("I measure him as being rather undeveloped as an individual"). I suggest we leave it at that.

[Deadsy]

But let us not forget that one of the gods of fantasy writing made Perrin dang near unreadable. Introduced the character Faile so most readers would have a character they all hated equally and made nearly every woman a know it all B****.

I love the guy and his writing but it isnt like his characters were all golden, i freaking hated Elayne from day one.

 

I think it's a testament to his good writing that he made people so passionate about his characters.

 

 

 

^ I really needed to get that out of my system.

[Thrasymachus]

Yeah, Psuedo, you're basically just trying to justify your lack of respect for Brandon, by suggesting that everyone who finds flaws in his continuation of Jordan's work also disrespects him. And you do it by distorting the meaning of respect and conflating two very different types of critique. Disrespect is not merely pointing out flaws, whether imagined or real, it is pointing out flaws for the sake of diminishing the author and his work. Pointing out flaws can be respectful when it's done for the sake of improving the author and his work. And a person who is respected is not in some sort of "power position" over others, able to intimidate or force his views on others. He his someone who is viewed as worthy, and as at least an equal to oneself. Worthy does not mean perfect, and equal does not mean superior.

[yoniy0]

Guys, when I said leave it at that, I wasn't speaking to A. Pseudonym alone (it wouldn't be fair to shut him up and let you rail on him, now would it?)

 

To be clear, I think the question could be debated, but (a) it's not really in line with the premise of this thread, and (b) we've proven that we can't or won't do so in a manner which agrees with DM's code of conduct.

[Durinax]

here is my analasys of the character cahnge during the shift

Rand - here BS got lucky the character was undergoing a substantial shift and as such would feel a bit different

Mat - a bit of a shock here (for most, I personally didn't notice it much due to me not being a huge fan of mat) but Mat also had a continuation line, with the ill fortune of having a very nicely written campaign before the shift which meant more readers where looking harder into Mat's PoVs

Egwene - I noticed no change, but then again I hate reading Egwene and struggle through them

Elayne - I felt she was well done, I enjoy Elayne PoVs and didn't notice a huge change, but then again I think she was changing gears from a heir into a queen mentality type deal

Perrin - I felt was very well done, still has the same type of introspective self criticizing aspect he always had

 

all in all I felt they where very well done, I think part of the issue is many people where expecting it to be the same. Which is exactly wrong due to peoples varying writing styles. All though it has been a while since I did a total read through so I may notice something when I do that once again (someday)

[Suttree]

I know you want to sit on that fence post, but I'm not going to.

 

[Mats Spare Hat]

So I started up TGS the other night, tail end of a re-read...

 

I think sanderson did an alright job with the Forsaken pow-wow scene. I wouldn't say it was outstanding, but for me it at least met sort of a baseline? It didn't feel too far off as far as characterization, character thought processes and the like - at least not to the extent that I started having having facial twitches indicative of impending hulk rage.

 

...On the other hand, did it ever bug anyone else that sanderson's Perrin comes off a bit better than his efforts at other characters? Some part of me wants to say what the heck, does that character recieve more polish & effort because it's your favorite, and then for someone else you just slap it down on paper and move along?

 

It just feels like an inconsistant effort across the dramatis personae - but he, sanderson, does seem to have an easier time with less established characters, as would anyone though really.

 

Although having said that, in the first part of TGS: A borderland farmer, with no weaponry? Common, you live in the borderlands and you don't have a sword, let alone a bow, and it's noted the character has three plots of acreage? They have bows in the Two Rivers, and I'm sure wolves & other critters are less crazy than what could fall upon your pastures, up north.

 

Sssscrreeewweyyy *shakes fist

[yoniy0]

That was actually RJ's. As to the level of polish he left it in, that's anyone's guess (as far as I know). See, that's precisely the problem with these things.

[Suttree]

That was actually RJ's. As to the level of polish he left it in, that's anyone's guess (as far as I know). See, that's precisely the problem with these things.

 

As much as I have been critical, it totally makes me smile when I come across those posts, most notably people often get the Mat ToG sequence wrong.