"If you think Wheel of Time is good, then I dare you to re-read it. Believe me, it’s really bad."

[dawnflower8]

My favorite BS book is actually Elantris, even though it was his first book. It's also my favorite stand-alone book ever.

Mistborn is great too, and the series gets better as it goes on.

The Rithmatist is good but it's a very quick read. (It's a lot like Harry Potter, also)

I've only read the first Stormlight Archive book, but it's really good. I like Elantris and Mistborn more, though.

I haven't read Warbreaker and haven't finished Steelheart so I can't recommend those.

[udbabor520]

 

 

(Sanderson saw the opportunity of his life after Jordan's death, the publisher thought that Jordan's readers will convert to Sanderson, that's the story behind the last three books, nothing more. Ironically, the sales plummeted after the readers had read TGS. They said: No, thank you.)

Source? This is the first time I see this claim.

 

 

I'm now in 'search mode'. I remember there was a page and even Terez had a comment on this. Terez, where are you? We need your help! Or it would be really good to see some official numbers from TOR, Sanderson, Sanderson's assist.

 

The graph looked like this: TGS 100%, TOM 50-60%, AMOL 65-70% I'm not sure at all, my memory is really fuzzy.

 

Anyway, a member of our book club posted this last year:

 

Apart from the fact that szilard and cseresz are not the masters of the English language, these facts are very interesting.

[WWWwombat]

@ Suttree

Wow to the bolded. I don't even know where to go with that. Rowling...superior...material. *cough*

 

From his own site:

 

http://www.patrickrothfuss.com/content/reviews.asp

 

"Harry Potter fans craving a new mind-blowing series should look no further than THE NAME OF THE WIND--the first book in a trilogy about an orphan boy who becomes a legend.

 

His debut novel combines the intricate stories-within-stories structure of The Arabian Nights with the academic setting of the Harry Potter series,

 

a Harry Potter for grownups.

 

Rowling was/is not an original author, but she was better handling that theme than Rothfuss.

 

 

 

That's a quote taken from an Amazon review.  That's not even close to evidence that Rothfuss' work is derivative.  There are definitely similarities between Harry Potter and Kvothe, but Kvothe is 8 million times more interesting.  Also, Rothfuss lampshades and inverts a lot of common fantasy tropes while Rowling plays them straight.  And his prose is much, much better.

[dawnflower8]

The plots of the Kingkiller Chronicles and Harry Potter aren't very similar. Sure, there's a magic school, but it's pretty different from Hogwarts. I can't really compare them, they're both good.

[WWWwombat]

[udbabor520]

That's a quote taken from an Amazon review.

 

It's hard to imagine that these quotes are posted on his website without his knowledge. However, the essence of my post was this: why should I read Brooks when I can read Tolkien? Why should I read Abercrombie instead of Martin? I choose Rowling over Rothfuss, and - of course, I will read Jordan's books only in the future.

 

One can enjoy subordinate, not original novels. It is their choice, if they are happy, then no problem but I go after the better, 'original' books and I will stuck with them.

 

Sanderson/Abercrombie admitted that he is just Jordan/Martin's shadow. And I agree with Rothfuss on this one:

 

When you’re 14, anything with a sword and a dragon is pretty cool. But when you’re 21 and you’ve read 2,000 fantasy novels, you start to realize that some of those books, well, they weren’t really good. OK, let’s be honest. A lot of them were crap.

HC: What really irked you? Pet peeves?

PR: Part of it was just the quality of the writing.

 

He had the nerve ...

 

But in these days even the third-rate authors are popular, and after selling a few hundred thousand books and being number one on the NYT's list, they really think that they are very good writers. I think it is high time to come off the high horse and doing an introspection.

 

[Suttree]

It's hard to imagine that these quotes are posted on his website without his knowledge. However, the essence of my post was this: why should I read Brooks when I can read Tolkien? Why should I read Abercrombie instead of Martin? I choose Rowling over Rothfuss, and - of course, I will read Jordan's books only in the future.

 

False equivalence. The Abercrombie/Rothfuss examples are in no way similar to Tolkien/Brooks. You are spot on with Brooks however, I think famed fantasy editor Lin Carter said it best:

 

"the single most cold-blooded, complete rip-off of another book that I have ever read". Elaborating on his disapproval of the book, Carter wrote that "Terry Brooks wasn't trying to imitate Tolkien's prose, just steal his story line and complete cast of characters, and [brooks] did it with such clumsiness and so heavy-handedly, that he virtually rubbed your nose in it."

 

 

but I go after the better, 'original' books and I will stuck with them.

You are assuming far too much with this statement.

 

Sanderson/Abercrombie admitted that he is just Jordan/Martin's shadow.

Source?

 

And I agree with Rothfuss on this one:

 

"When you’re 14, anything with a sword and a dragon is pretty cool. But when you’re 21 and you’ve read 2,000 fantasy novels, you start to realize that some of those books, well, they weren’t really good. OK, let’s be honest. A lot of them were crap.

HC: What really irked you? Pet peeves?

PR: Part of it was just the quality of the writing."

 

But in these days even the third-rate authors are popular, and after selling a few hundred thousand books and being number one on the NYT's list, they really think that they are very good writers. I think it is high time to come off the high horse and doing an introspection.

Indeed, I agree with Rothfuss as well and he is spot on with his characterization of the situation. All of the above quote is excellent advice for authors such as Rowling and Stephanie Meyer. High sales numbers are not necesarily an indicator of quality(although to be clear Rothfuss has sold 1 mil+ not a few hundred thousand).

 

Look it would be almost impossible to argue that Rothfuss' work doesn't surpass Rowling's in scope. His prose is far superior as well. Perhaps if you gave some examples of how you think his prose is lacking and elaborate a bit more on what you are referring to in terms of scope?

 

As for Abercrombie's work, outside of fitting into a general "dark" category it bears little resemblance to Martin's. It's as if you are crediting Martin for inventing a whole category in the genre which most assuredly isn't the case. Abercrombie started off with what appeared to be a straight forward fantasy tale and then midway through started peeling back layers forcing everyone to rethink what was going on. His stand alones branch out even more with elements of Westerns etc. Sorry but I'm just not seeing a solid argument here.

[damandred]

"Why should i read Abercrombie instead of Martin"

 

should be the other way around, i would rather read Abercrombie instead of Martin any day of the week and twice on sunday, as Suttree pointed out i dont think they are that similar except for the graphic violance. Have to say aswell first time Logan turned to the bloody nine was one of the few fantasy moments that made me sit up and think "Wow" that was origanal, sure there have been alter egos before but non like nine fingers that i can think of.

[Jak 0' the Shadows]

Could we all agree to not abbreviate Brandon Sanderson to 'BS'? .... Please! 

[Mr Ares]

 

That's a quote taken from an Amazon review.

 

It's hard to imagine that these quotes are posted on his website without his knowledge. However, the essence of my post was this: why should I read Brooks when I can read Tolkien? Why should I read Abercrombie instead of Martin? I choose Rowling over Rothfuss, and - of course, I will read Jordan's books only in the future.

 

One can enjoy subordinate, not original novels. It is their choice, if they are happy, then no problem but I go after the better, 'original' books and I will stuck with them.

 

Sanderson/Abercrombie admitted that he is just Jordan/Martin's shadow. And I agree with Rothfuss on this one:

 

When you’re 14, anything with a sword and a dragon is pretty cool. But when you’re 21 and you’ve read 2,000 fantasy novels, you start to realize that some of those books, well, they weren’t really good. OK, let’s be honest. A lot of them were crap.

HC: What really irked you? Pet peeves?

PR: Part of it was just the quality of the writing.

 

He had the nerve ...

 

But in these days even the third-rate authors are popular, and after selling a few hundred thousand books and being number one on the NYT's list, they really think that they are very good writers. I think it is high time to come off the high horse and doing an introspection.

I'm sure I'm not the only person wondering this: is this a joke? Abercrombie is not derivative of Martin and Rothfuss is not derivative of Rowling. One might as well say that Harry Potter is derivative of WoT (in TGH we see the girls learning in the WT - it's an institution that functions, in part, as a school of magic. So Rowling expanded on the school part and reduced the scope to create Harry Potter. She's not an original author, like RJ. Harry Potter is just WoT for kids). Sounds absurd, doesn't it? Rothfuss is an author capable of better pose than Rowling, and whose work has certain overlaps with hers, but is in no way a rip off of it.

 

Could we all agree to not abbreviate Brandon Sanderson to 'BS'? .... Please! 

No. Whether you think it apt or unfortunate, those are his initials, and any writer in the internet age has to accept the general unwillingness of people to write anything out in full when they could just reduce it to a series of initials. If he didn't want to be BS, he should have used his middle initial. Look at Ian Cameron Esslemont, who used his middle name and ended up with the coolest* initials in fantasy.

 

 

 

 

 

*Pun intended.

[Jak 0' the Shadows]

Yeah, but it also stands for..... bullsh*t. 

[Suttree]

Yeah, but it also stands for..... bullsh*t. 

 

Pretty sure he got that:

 

No. Whether you think it apt or unfortunate, those are his initials,

[Jak 0' the Shadows]

So why don't we spend a little more effort and not use his initials? 

[wotfan4472]

How about we do this: I find the WoT immensely re readable, and constantly do. In fact, I am on A Memory of Light, and half day through The Eye of the World for the twentieth time. And I still enjoy them. Have not finished Clash of Kings, and find it difficult to read. Not because of writing prose, you know that instantly when you start them. Martin's is difficult because his chapters are done by character povs, where I have trouble remembering where the events impact the story and heavy violence descriptive violencebwhch took me out alot.

 

Jordan's prose was terrific for expanding and creating his world through description. Brandon is actually a Tolkein with bit of Salvatory in there too; Tolkein expanded through looong conversations, such as Frodo's discussion with the Elfvish party he came across or Tom Bombadil's discussion. Brandon does this as well, since Androl feels alot like a Tolkein presented character. This does not bother me, because I like both styles.

 

Salvatory is terrific in describing dueling combat, such as Drizzt do Urden vs Artemis Entreri, which is to me legendary in fantasy writing. Brandon showed this in WoT with the Perrin vs Slayer duel which was really good and especially in the Rand vs Moridin duel.

 

It is why the last three books are different from the rest of the series. But this is a series that had to be completed. After all, we got the battle we have been waiting for forever. Brandon did as good a job as he could do. There are tons of authors out there whose books were completed by another. Agatha Christie has a novel completed by another, and Virginia Andrews does as well. Both are considered good novels. Do not remember the titles though.

[dawnflower8]

Why do I have a feeling J K Rowling never actually read WoT?

 

They do have a lot of similarities though....and not just the magic school.

[Suttree]

Salvatory is terrific in describing dueling combat, such as Drizzt do Urden vs Artemis Entreri, which is to me legendary in fantasy writing.

Salvatore...truly a master in the fantasy genre.

 

The second pie Jarlaxle threw came in harder, and was not meant to be caught—except by the man’s surprised expression.

“What?” the woman yelled as the pie splattered across her lover’s face, and he gave a yell, as well, but one of pain.

“Jarlaxle, what are you about?” Piter demanded.

 

“I am killed!” the surprised man cried. He slapped at his face, sending cream flying and eventually revealing a small dart that had been concealed within the pie, protruding from his cheek. He reached for it, hands trembling, but he couldn’t quite seem to grasp it.

 

–Road of the Patriarch, R. A. Salvatore

 

I AM KILLED

I MEAN WHO THE HELL SAYS THIS

HE IS KILLED BY A DART. HIDDEN IN A PIE.

 

Brandon does indeed handle duels very well but let's leave Salvatore out of the discussion shall we?

 

Edit: Just to add, not sure I've ever seen someone cite BS's "tell don't show" style as a strength.

[Mats Spare Hat]

When I picked up WoT, it was after having been really, really into series' like Forgotten Realms, and Dragonlance - Keep in mind this was like early/mid 90's, middle-school...Anyway, at that point, by comparison, WoT felt like a significant step up, in terms of literary scope, and quality of writing.

One of the most significant issues, for me, concerning BS' representation of the series' end, is that it felt as though the writing quality, even between consecutive chapters, was so maddeningly inconsistent - to the point where some scenes came off as being pleasantly comparable to RJ levels of exposition, for example, but then when it came time to run through a separate character arc for instance, it felt as though things were utterly half-assed, clearly out of place, ill-conceived & miserably executed.

And that's not to say RJ was the paragon of the prosaic ideal, but there comes a point where you anticipate, as a reader, a certain level of care, competency, and expectation as far as the effort & consistency, with regard to a series of not insignificant magnitude.


In the case of BS' rendition of WoT, for me, it was like reading something crafted by a hampster with DID.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Why do I have a feeling J K Rowling never actually read WoT?

 

They do have a lot of similarities though....and not just the magic school.

 

 

 

From Rowling:

"In fact, I don't really like fantasy. It's not so much that I don't like it, I really haven't read a lot of it. <...> It didn't occur to me for quite a while that I was writing fantasy when I'd started "Harry Potter," because I'm a bit slow on the uptake about those things. I was so caught up in it. And I was about two thirds of the way through, and I suddenly thought, This has got unicorns in it. I'm writing fantasy!"

[Mr Ares]

So why don't we spend a little more effort and not use his initials? 

Is there any particular reason why we should? The internet is already home to a good many initialisms - including the utterly redundant like "IMHO" or "TLDR" - so why should Brandon be treated as an exception? Again, if he didn't want to be known as BS, he shouldn't have written books with those initials in this day and age.

[Jak 0' the Shadows]

 

So why don't we spend a little more effort and not use his initials? 

Is there any particular reason why we should? The internet is already home to a good many initialisms - including the utterly redundant like "IMHO" or "TLDR" - so why should Brandon be treated as an exception? Again, if he didn't want to be known as BS, he shouldn't have written books with those initials in this day and age.

 

 

Relax dude, it was a joke about his initials. This doesn't need a debate. 

[Mr Ares]

 

 

So why don't we spend a little more effort and not use his initials? 

Is there any particular reason why we should? The internet is already home to a good many initialisms - including the utterly redundant like "IMHO" or "TLDR" - so why should Brandon be treated as an exception? Again, if he didn't want to be known as BS, he shouldn't have written books with those initials in this day and age.

 

 

Relax dude, it was a joke about his initials. This doesn't need a debate. 

Your initial post was a joke, and was treated as such. After that, you give every impression of playing it straight.

[wotfan4472]

His tell, don't show style works because Jordan foreshadowed all of the pieces. Brandon had to navigate them. The three books have been completed for a year. The debate is moot now. Eventually the negative sentiments will start to destroy the reputation of this series. I shudder to think what will happen with any adaptations if this happens. I put Salvatory in, because those duel scenes in AMoL reminded me of those sequences of Salvatory's without knowing who he was!! I was a kid then, but I remembered it only by reading the AMoL. So something good came from it, I suppose.

[udbabor520]

Eventually the negative sentiments will start to destroy the reputation of this series. I shudder to think what will happen with any adaptations if this happens.

 

Using GoT as an example: old fans (1996-2000) - they hate (and most of them don't watch!) the tv series, new 'fans' (2011-2014) - the tv series is superior in every way (and only idiots read the books). Interesting aspects.

 

We are lucky, because WoT cannot translate to small/big screen without looking ridiculous (plus the story has to scaling back to basics etc.)

 

 

One more thing about the reputation. The series is constantly under attacks but most attackers are not going to take the time to bother reading WoT properly. They had heard a few phrases (it is just a retelling of LotR, pulling her braid, all the women are the same, endless descriptions) but they did not spend any time with it (maybe a fast skimming).

 

Anyone could hire a poster, a blogger, a reviewer in these days for 50 cents/$2-5. You just only need 3-4 people (of course they will use 10-15 alternative names) and you could take over the main sites and forums. You could see that in politics (USA, UK, China, Russia), in videogames (Neogaf, N4G, Reddit), amazon, newegg etc

 

this is just the tip of the iceberg:

 

After being caught paying for false praise and negative comments about competitors, Samsung has been fined just over $340,000.

 

but I think it does not matter in the long run. Why should I care about false opinions?

 

I always recommend the series this way:

 

udbabor520: read the first book.

acquaintance: done

u: did you like it?

a: yes - no

u: then go on read the second one! - read something else

[Suttree]

We are lucky, because WoT cannot translate to small/big screen without looking ridiculous (plus the story has to scaling back to basics etc.)

Werthead has made a number of detailed posts around how this could be accomplished.

 

http://www.dragonmount.com/forums/topic/59787-bringing-the-wheel-of-time-to-the-screen/

 

 

One more thing about the reputation. The series is constantly under attacks but most attackers are not going to take the time to bother reading WoT properly.

Actually it's those long time, detail oriented readers that have largely been the most out spoken about the drop in quality under BS.

[WWWwombat]

 

Eventually the negative sentiments will start to destroy the reputation of this series. I shudder to think what will happen with any adaptations if this happens.

 

Using GoT as an example: old fans (1996-2000) - they hate (and most of them don't watch!) the tv series, new 'fans' (2011-2014) - the tv series is superior in every way (and only idiots read the books). Interesting aspects.

 

Terrible generalization.  I started reading A Song of Ice and Fire in 2007 or 2008, so apparently I don't exist according to your categories.  As for my opinion, I like the TV show, but I recognize that like any adaptation of a novel, it's an adaptation and isn't going to be 100% faithful.  For instance, combining or paring away a lot of the characters was pretty important for putting it on TV.  I think the show's creators took a few too many liberties at points and got some things wrong, but overall, they did a lot more right than they did wrong, and the show is a faithful representation of the spirit of GRRM's work.