Thisguy's Topic on Brandon's Work

[NetSlider]

I used to love coming here and reading everyone's input but recently it has turned into a diatribe of what BS did wrong rather than what he may have gotten right. It's a damn shame is what it is.

 

Then you were around for when he was almost exclusively praised after the TGS and to a lesser extent ToM r correct? It was that very unrealistic response that has played a large role in leading us to our current situation. Additionally as more people have closely studied the work on rereads after the intial new material glow wears off mistakes become more glaring and most of the positive passages have already been discussed long ago. I think another issue is the regression in quality we saw in ToM an then again in the AMoL excerpts. There is the very real perception that things are going backwards. Take Mat, despite claims that Brandon fixed his issues with that character we see the very same things in ch. 11 that were problems in TGS.

 

I thought I can avoid confronting you but I think it's only fair to express my opinion completely. You do indeed come out in most of your post as extremely pompous and condescending individual. You keep on talking about this concept of literary quality and so on without even trying to understand the point of view of the individuals that disagree with your outlook on things. Instead you keep on arguing using the same tactics that are just boring now - first a lame and/or generic complement, than grasping a specific point that an individual expressed while disregarding the rest of the post, and finally selectively attacking that point without addressing the bigger picture. I never was a big fan of your posts as even when I agreed with your opinion[comment removed]. I understand that you are convinced that you are "qualified" to be taken as some sort of authority on "literary quality" subject due to your professional interactions / job description, but let me tell you, you are not being consistent. If you think that your are bashing (and yes, I say bashing) qualifies as "constructive criticism" than you need to point out specific way to fix it. For example, why not take up a chapter with Mat's POV and re-write it so his "voice" comes out better, as some here already suggested? Until you are willing to prove your "qualification" and ability to provide "constructive criticism" call it what it is - mainly, your points of view. And as such, you need to see why people think you come out as being on the a high horse. I'm sure one of the things that will be thrown at my face is a request to provide examples. Well, this one stood up the most:

 

 

Or maybe if someone HAD ACTUALLY BEEN THE TARGET OF AN ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT AS THE ASSASSIN SCREAMS OUT MARATH'DAMANE AS THEY TRIED TO KILL HER.

 

Am I totally spacing here? I don't recall that at all. Could you let me know the chapter so I can check it...

Is that the part with the self fulfilling prophecy that Bryne and Siuan discuss at length after he kills the Bloodknife? TGS 41

 

Edit: Bloodknife, not Bloodring. I'm confusing all the new this-that's that are popping up recently.

 

I really need to force myself to slog through TGS and the dogs dinner that is ToM one last time. Feel like I'm forgetting things from both.

 

 

All that I've said above is not meant to be "in your face" attack but neither is it meant to be sugar coated. I'm not gonna hide behind niceties and false assurance of not trying to be offensive. I'm old enough to understand that sometimes it is impossible to avoid a conflict when expressing an opinion of others (though it is possible to use proper language to try and convey your point as civilly as possible). Please take notice of my use of the word "opinion." There is the central issue at hand - instead of using "constructive criticism" in addressing your posts I've clearly stated that it is my opinion of your posts (though clearly I'm not the only one).

 

Valsuviou is right as I am also ashamed for the way some very selective people on DM treated BS. I'm not claiming of having an ability to provide "constructive criticism" or such, nor am I a literature or English major. But I don't need either backgrounds to understand that out of all the people involved in finishing WOT, BS has the least power. To think any differently would be just stupid. Thus, piling all the blame on him is just ridiculous. If you'll try to convince me that a relatively young and unknown writer was brought on board to finish perhaps the most popular SF series since LotR without contractually locking him into terms that would make sure complete control of the end product, don't even bother, I won't buy it in a million years.

 

Bottom line, it's either you express your opinions and qualify them as such, without some additional qualification of "providing constructive criticism" as a defense or fallback line, or you provide some of that so much mentioned constructive criticism with specif feedback; mainly, your own rework of the parts you consider need the most attention, Mat's chapter or such. Until such time your posts are basically saying over and over again that "I don't know how it should be done, but it should not be done the way it is!"

[Suttree]

...

Couldn't avoid confronting me? What a strange thing to say. Does this topic have my name on it? Why not confront the text as everyone else here is doing instead of falsely characterizing my responses in a feeble attempt to discredit? I have provided examples of things that are wrong and why innumerable times. To say I don't attempt to understand other view points is false and if I disagree I provide reasoning. To your "example" you found TGS is tough for me to get through and ToM is called out by many(even Team Jordan) for it's many mistakes, hence dogs dinner. So try again to I dunno what exactly are you trying...why don't you go back and pull examples of me constantly defending Brandon and Team Jordan because they were taking extra time to get this one "right". Why don't you go back to the release of TGS where I was posting all of the things I loved about what Brandon had done. What you will not do is inform me that I am wrong in voicing my opinion in the quality of this work of art or tell anyone here what they can/can not or how they can/can not express themselves. You dare call me pompous after attempting to do that? You do not get to choose what people say or think...I know shocker huh? I have provided support for my opinions many times on the text, and I congratulate those who give an honest account whether I happen to agree or not. For instance my response early in thread to Abschalten

 

"Let me be the first to say great post Abs. Although we are pretty far apart on how we break down the material it is very refreshing to have an informed poster articulate why they feel Brandon has done a good job. Usually we just get a knee jerk reactions of "hating" or " well lets see you do better"! Hope to see more of your posts post AMoL as the discussion evolves."

 

See what he has going that you do not? See what he did in his post that adds to a valid discourse? I can wait a bit while you think it over and perhaps add something to the topic instead of just attacking a fellow poster. You see this how people grow, this is how proper discussions that hold merit come about. Dissenting opinions should always be welcomed and encouraged.

 

As for claiming I should personally write something it is a fallacy to claim a critic should be able to "rewrite his voice better"(although it's funny when people say this, given some projects I happen to know are in the works). If Harold Bloom rips part of a Pynchon novel does he have to show how he could "write it better"? No of course not, the very idea is absurd.

 

So I get it, you don't agree with some of us, that gives you no right to throw out personnel attacks. There is nothing in the slightest about either post you quoted that is offensive. It is simply my opinion and if you don't agree that is fine, what no one needs is a dissertation on why you feel people should not voice their personnel opinion. Now I did happen to study literature in college and I work in marketing now for a major apparel company where I write copy that goes out to consumers across the nation. Does that make me qualified to analyze a work of art? Yes, I feel so and I refuse to be dishonest with myself in what I am seeing. Does it mean anyone who doesn't have the same background, is unable to judge properly? No of course not. The very idea is ridiculous.

 

Lastly I have offered a good deal over my years to this community. I have helped people do research, transcribed materials and I am always ready with a quote if needed in a discussion. The people I am friends with here know well my history and I refuse to allow someone such as yourself with a skewed perspective to dictate what I say. This is a topic on the quality of Brandon's work, I know that is rather surprising given how many people are attacking those such as Luckers and myself because they don't agree but nevertheless can we please stay on topic. The funny thing is I have been completely honest in my opinion, I have supported my opinions with quotes and reasoning many times over. I did the same with both RJ's faults and the things I liked about Brandon's work when the books came out. It's extremely disingenuous for you to suggest otherwise and it is a flat out insult for you to call it bashing, act like we have a vendetta or suggest that it is unfounded/I don't support my views.

[navahgar]

Hello all. I've been on the forums for a few years, and posted infrequently about various things. I don't dare wade into this heated argument about the quality of Brandon Sanderson's work, but one point jumped out at me, as I was perusing the comments, that I'd like to hear addressed by some of you (namely Luckers, Suttree, and Mark D). Hopefully you're still checking this, and still remember those comments made early on in this thread. I apologize for arriving late to the discussion, and also if this question has been raised before. The question arises from contrasting two quotes:

 

Well, I'm still a book away from BS's work. However, I don't see the big deal about this one line. And, considering the books seem to have a lot of people with a lot of question, maybe it's not a big deal to just say instead of imply; he's Chosen.

 

Well yeah, if it was just that one line it wouldn't really be a big deal. But as you will soon find out it happens constantly.

 

As for the second part you don't think "That name has been discarded," Moridin said. "Just as each of us, upon being Chosen, discarded what we were and the names men called us. From this moment on, this man shall be known only as M'Hael" is saying he is chosen?

 

Come on. You're telling me I'm the only one who does stuff like that in real life or in meetings to get their point across? I do it quite often. All the time. Daily...

 

And unfortunately so does Brandon, consistently throughout TGS and ToM. There is a pattern of not trusting his own writing to convey or the readers to unerstand subtlety, so we are consistently sledge hammered with repition. It is a very real issue in his work and one that takes little effort to point out. It comes down to what one prefers in their writing I guess. I don't like to be lead by the hand, if you don't agree that is fine but there is no reason to pretend the issue doesn't exist.

 

 

I understand this comment from Suttree to be suggesting that Brandon Sanderson is heavy-handed in his writing style. This accusation of a lack of subtlety is something that I've seen leveled in multiple threads.

 

Cf.:

 

What I mean is - so what. All of the characters change throughout the books. There's good reason for Aviendha to become more familiar with Rand and call him by his first name only. What's the big deal?

 

The big deal is that it would only take one line in the entire book to confirm that she changed and feels more comfortable with calling Rand by his first name only now and that line just isn't there. Why isnt it there? Why isn't there a line that says she feels more comfortable with referring to him as Rand in front of others now? Why not put that in when there are plenty of lines to the contrary showing how she is very uncomfortable referring to him by his first name. The lack of this simple line in the entire writing means there is no transition and suddenly it is extremely out of character and jarring. It doesn't matter that BS wrote this, if RJ had wrote it like this it would also have jarred us.

 

If it wasn't a mistake then a single sentence could have completely corrected the entire thing and it would become a seamless part of the story. That sentence wasn't there and that is why this irritates people.

 

This is a comment from Mark D. referring to an earlier comment of his where he laments Sanderson's characterization of Aviendha in a scene where she refers to Rand as 'Rand', and not 'Rand al'Thor'. His point, if I may presume to paraphrase him, is not that Aviendha should not have used just 'Rand', but that if Sanderson was attempting to portray a character progression, he should have been clearer in doing so. (See also Clouded's post regarding the progression of Aviendha's attitude toward names).

 

I know that you are two different people, with different criticisms of Sanderson, but I compare these two quotes to highlight a potential issue in that criticism. The first point was that Sanderson was too blunt; the second that he was too subtle. Note that I am not making any comment on the quality of Sanderson's work directly, although I will say that I've enjoyed both Sanderson books for their plot developments, while having some issues with them for their characterizations. I can, if asked, point to areas of the last few books that I have specifically enjoyed, although I must defer to others on these forums (Luckers in particular) with respect to whether those scenes were authored by Robert Jordan or Brandon Sanderson. In any case, please discuss how you both reconcile this potential contradiction (which you may do by showing that there isn't a contradiction, and I don't know what I'm talking about). Thanks!

[Suttree]

I know that you are two different people, with different criticisms of Sanderson, but I compare these two quotes to highlight a potential issue in that criticism. The first point was that Sanderson was too blunt; the second that he was too subtle.

 

Hey nav...just want to point out that I don't think you will find anyone who has ever said BS is too subtle. The man has strengths as an author but subtlety has never been mentioned as one. I don't want to presume to speak for Mark but I would guess that isn't what he meant.

[Luckers]

Netslider, Suttree, calm down both of you. You've both said your piece, now walk away for a bit.

[navahgar]

I know that you are two different people, with different criticisms of Sanderson, but I compare these two quotes to highlight a potential issue in that criticism. The first point was that Sanderson was too blunt; the second that he was too subtle.

 

Hey nav...just want to point out that I don't think you will find anyone who has ever said BS is too subtle. The man has strengths as an author but subtlety has never been mentioned as one. I don't want to presume to speak for Mark but I would guess that isn't what he meant.

 

Fair enough. I can't speak to what he meant either. I highlighted those two points in that way because I felt the two criticisms were effectively saying opposite things.

[Suttree]

I know that you are two different people, with different criticisms of Sanderson, but I compare these two quotes to highlight a potential issue in that criticism. The first point was that Sanderson was too blunt; the second that he was too subtle.

 

Hey nav...just want to point out that I don't think you will find anyone who has ever said BS is too subtle. The man has strengths as an author but subtlety has never been mentioned as one. I don't want to presume to speak for Mark but I would guess that isn't what he meant.

 

Fair enough. I can't speak to what he meant either. I highlighted those two points in that way because I felt the two criticisms were effectively saying opposite things.

 

I'm sure you will find that at times actually, even if this was not one of them. We all have to keep in mind that these are opinions. To my mind they should all be welcomed and debated openly. That said you will find many of the things people highlight about Brandon's work pretty consistent, much like it was when people critiqued RJ's around CoT.

[navahgar]

By the way, let me point out a few scenes in the last few books that I really enjoyed:

 

1.) The scene in tGS where Rodel Ituralde meets Rand for the first time.

2.) The dream conversation between Rand and Moridin in tGS.

3.) The Tuon chapter Gambits in tGS.

4.) The Nynaeve and Rand scene in ToM where she tries to heal him and he asks her to be with him at Shayol Ghul.

5.) The scene in one of those books where Rand talks to Cadsuane (and others) about knowing the faces of the Forsaken, and chides Cadsuane for wanting to dance with the Dragon Reborn.

 

I'd love to find out whether any of these were authored by Robert Jordan, or whether they were all Brandon Sanderson.

[The Fisher King]

I can tell you that the majority of the material you reference there was written by...BRANDON SANDERSON, actually!

 

And I agree! I enjoyed much of what you listed, as well :)

 

 

Fish

[BFG]

Sidster...

 

Brandon Sanderson made Mat Cauthon transform from Han Solo into Jar Jar Binks LOL!!! :-( ;-)

 

 

Fish

 

I think I view it as somewhere between the differences between Pippin and Faramir in the LoTR books and film. Slightly worse than the differences in Perrin, but not as bad as the difference in Faramir.

 

 

Hello all. I've been on the forums for a few years, and posted infrequently about various things. I don't dare wade into this heated argument about the quality of Brandon Sanderson's work, but one point jumped out at me, as I was perusing the comments, that I'd like to hear addressed by some of you (namely Luckers, Suttree, and Mark D). Hopefully you're still checking this, and still remember those comments made early on in this thread. I apologize for arriving late to the discussion, and also if this question has been raised before. The question arises from contrasting two quotes:

 

Well, I'm still a book away from BS's work. However, I don't see the big deal about this one line. And, considering the books seem to have a lot of people with a lot of question, maybe it's not a big deal to just say instead of imply; he's Chosen.

 

Well yeah, if it was just that one line it wouldn't really be a big deal. But as you will soon find out it happens constantly.

 

As for the second part you don't think "That name has been discarded," Moridin said. "Just as each of us, upon being Chosen, discarded what we were and the names men called us. From this moment on, this man shall be known only as M'Hael" is saying he is chosen?

 

Come on. You're telling me I'm the only one who does stuff like that in real life or in meetings to get their point across? I do it quite often. All the time. Daily...

 

And unfortunately so does Brandon, consistently throughout TGS and ToM. There is a pattern of not trusting his own writing to convey or the readers to unerstand subtlety, so we are consistently sledge hammered with repition. It is a very real issue in his work and one that takes little effort to point out. It comes down to what one prefers in their writing I guess. I don't like to be lead by the hand, if you don't agree that is fine but there is no reason to pretend the issue doesn't exist.

 

 

I understand this comment from Suttree to be suggesting that Brandon Sanderson is heavy-handed in his writing style. This accusation of a lack of subtlety is something that I've seen leveled in multiple threads.

 

Cf.:

 

What I mean is - so what. All of the characters change throughout the books. There's good reason for Aviendha to become more familiar with Rand and call him by his first name only. What's the big deal?

 

The big deal is that it would only take one line in the entire book to confirm that she changed and feels more comfortable with calling Rand by his first name only now and that line just isn't there. Why isnt it there? Why isn't there a line that says she feels more comfortable with referring to him as Rand in front of others now? Why not put that in when there are plenty of lines to the contrary showing how she is very uncomfortable referring to him by his first name. The lack of this simple line in the entire writing means there is no transition and suddenly it is extremely out of character and jarring. It doesn't matter that BS wrote this, if RJ had wrote it like this it would also have jarred us.

 

If it wasn't a mistake then a single sentence could have completely corrected the entire thing and it would become a seamless part of the story. That sentence wasn't there and that is why this irritates people.

 

This is a comment from Mark D. referring to an earlier comment of his where he laments Sanderson's characterization of Aviendha in a scene where she refers to Rand as 'Rand', and not 'Rand al'Thor'. His point, if I may presume to paraphrase him, is not that Aviendha should not have used just 'Rand', but that if Sanderson was attempting to portray a character progression, he should have been clearer in doing so. (See also Clouded's post regarding the progression of Aviendha's attitude toward names).

 

I know that you are two different people, with different criticisms of Sanderson, but I compare these two quotes to highlight a potential issue in that criticism. The first point was that Sanderson was too blunt; the second that he was too subtle. Note that I am not making any comment on the quality of Sanderson's work directly, although I will say that I've enjoyed both Sanderson books for their plot developments, while having some issues with them for their characterizations. I can, if asked, point to areas of the last few books that I have specifically enjoyed, although I must defer to others on these forums (Luckers in particular) with respect to whether those scenes were authored by Robert Jordan or Brandon Sanderson. In any case, please discuss how you both reconcile this potential contradiction (which you may do by showing that there isn't a contradiction, and I don't know what I'm talking about). Thanks!

 

 

Regarding the specific example here of Avis use of Rand as opposed to Rand al Thor - I've now rereading Winters Heart and (I think) in the Prologue, where Avi and Elayne become first sisters where Avi says something along the lines of

 

'She[Elayne] has the love of Rand al'... of Rand..." (I can check the books later to provide a specific quote.)

 

It's paraphrased but she definitely says Rand. Suggests to me that taken into context with other Aiel not always using full names that it's not a completely unrealistic scenario that now she views herself as deserving of him that she would change her way of speaking. And their's already text in the books that shows the split.

[navahgar]

I can tell you that the majority of the material you reference there was written by...BRANDON SANDERSON, actually!

 

And I agree! I enjoyed much of what you listed, as well :)

 

 

Fish

 

Awesome. Thanks for the info.

[Saken]

Precisely. ;-)

 

 

Fish

 

To the quote, I will counter that George Lucas is still alive and is directly responsible but to note, I didn't like the original Star Wars films either. Really, who thought Samuel Jackson would make a good Jedi, he should have been replaced with Kiefer Sutherland.

 

Not to the quote:

I imagine it would be hard if you created characters in a book and then I had to finish them regardless of how skilled I was as an author. People could give me all sorts of helpful hints but if I don't see that character as you created him/her, I might come close but never get it truly right.

 

I think that is whats happening here. Jordan had an image of Rand, or Mat, or Egwene in his mind and no matter how much I read or study, I bet my idea is different of what he had in mind. So is BS's idea of these characters thus the dilemma of fans saying he didn't get it right.

 

I do not agree that BS is lazy, didn't care, wanted a paycheck, and many of the other things people say about why the books aren't up to par. I think there is much more to it than that.

 

I think there are two types of fans, die hard, and normal fans. Normal fans are overwhelmingly pleased and the die hard fans are not. BS is writing the books for the normal fans.

 

I will say that, if I were asked to provide a critique to an author and then that critque was not used at all, I would be furious. Especially, if I wasn't being paid to do it.

[ShaunShawn]

I hope the double bond comes in to play in a big way, it will justify to me having a Red do the absolute last possible thing I would ever expect one to do, especially after a reaction of almost being violated by a male channeler.

 

We've seen at least one red bond a male channeler and completely change her attitude toward male channelers before TGS...check Knife of Dreams, the chapter where Rand gets his hand blown off.

 

 

To be honest I get the impression BS bit off more than he could chew. I made this comparison before; get a really bad tattoo and take it to an expert, they probably won't even want to try and fix it. Most people who are excellent in their craft want nothing to do with someone else's work. But BS took it on, and I would really like to know why. Was he struck by the honor of it? Was he confident in the job he thought he could do? Did he see the potential impact on his career and his own works? I don't know. What it FEELS like to me though, which can happen pretty easily, is that he did tGS, and for a time felt like he knocked it out of the park. He even remarked that Mat, one of his biggest flaws, was thought to himself as a success until it was pointed out to him and he went back and looked at it. So does a good job, thinks to himself "I got this." Puts out ToM as fans re-reads of tGS start pointing out mistakes. ToM comes out, and people know what to look for, point out even more flaws, and now his confindence has crumbled. Now he just wants to be done with it and go back to the safety of his own work. Can't give them what they want so I'll give them what I can and walk away. That is the precise feeling I get of it.

 

Meh, that's enough.

 

Really? First, if you were an up and coming author who had been sucked into fantasy by this series, why wouldn't you take this job? The chance to finish your favorite series? No one with any chops would be scared off by this job, they would be excited. BS had far more to gain from taking this job unless he totally screwed it up...and most people (judging from Amazon reviews) feel that he didn't screw it up.

[BFG]

I hope the double bond comes in to play in a big way, it will justify to me having a Red do the absolute last possible thing I would ever expect one to do, especially after a reaction of almost being violated by a male channeler.

 

We've seen at least one red bond a male channeler and completely change her attitude toward male channelers before TGS...check Knife of Dreams, the chapter where Rand gets his hand blown off.

 

 

Toot - Except Pevara's established as wanting a warder (since we met her as a BA hunter), she's gone specifically to the BT to bond a male channeler, and by the sound of it she's now spent several days handing around Androl and come to respect him (at least a little). Or maybe I misunderstood what you find so hard to believe?

[TootThatHorn]

I hope the double bond comes in to play in a big way, it will justify to me having a Red do the absolute last possible thing I would ever expect one to do, especially after a reaction of almost being violated by a male channeler.

 

We've seen at least one red bond a male channeler and completely change her attitude toward male channelers before TGS...check Knife of Dreams, the chapter where Rand gets his hand blown off.

 

 

To be honest I get the impression BS bit off more than he could chew. I made this comparison before; get a really bad tattoo and take it to an expert, they probably won't even want to try and fix it. Most people who are excellent in their craft want nothing to do with someone else's work. But BS took it on, and I would really like to know why. Was he struck by the honor of it? Was he confident in the job he thought he could do? Did he see the potential impact on his career and his own works? I don't know. What it FEELS like to me though, which can happen pretty easily, is that he did tGS, and for a time felt like he knocked it out of the park. He even remarked that Mat, one of his biggest flaws, was thought to himself as a success until it was pointed out to him and he went back and looked at it. So does a good job, thinks to himself "I got this." Puts out ToM as fans re-reads of tGS start pointing out mistakes. ToM comes out, and people know what to look for, point out even more flaws, and now his confindence has crumbled. Now he just wants to be done with it and go back to the safety of his own work. Can't give them what they want so I'll give them what I can and walk away. That is the precise feeling I get of it.

 

Meh, that's enough.

 

Really? First, if you were an up and coming author who had been sucked into fantasy by this series, why wouldn't you take this job? The chance to finish your favorite series? No one with any chops would be scared off by this job, they would be excited. BS had far more to gain from taking this job unless he totally screwed it up...and most people (judging from Amazon reviews) feel that he didn't screw it up.

 

Your last points about BS' thought process are so ridiculous...I'll just say that if you really believe that then this is a pointless conversation.

 

Good for them over at Amazon. Like I've said before, kudos to the people that enjoy his work, I don't and I'm entitled to that opinion. Just as you are able to speculate why an author would take it on, your speculation is no more or less valid than mine so I don't understand why you would word your reply the way you would, but judging by it you're right, no need to carry on this 'conversation.'

 

@BFG, ya you're right about that with Pevara. The part that blew me away is just that she felt under duress and her instinct was to immediately bond him; I could see that from a Green, just seemed odd, so I'm waiting to see how it plays out.

[Agitel]

I think it was a matter of control. She felt that she needed to be in power and in control of the situation. Aes Sedai can compel their warders. I don't know if Pevara realized that male channelers are immune to that. She was very disturbed by that type of connection to a male channeler, which she has reflexive biases and prejudices against, even if intellectually she's trying to move beyond that (though she expresses doubt that saidin is cleansed and has witnessed eccentricities/madness in Androl and others). I don't know if emotions can cross the bond, and it wouldn't be necessary for the explanation, but I wonder if Androl's anxiety when channeling could have fed across the link to her, fueling and amplifying her own anxiety. She seemed on the verge of an anxiety attack in any case.

[TootThatHorn]

And that's the part that gets me Agitel. I would expect a shield over a bond. I think the bond was necessary to the plot line, just seemed odd the way it got done. It was like two kids slapping each other out of shock.

[yoniy0]

We've seen at least one red bond a male channeler and completely change her attitude toward male channelers before TGS...check Knife of Dreams, the chapter where Rand gets his hand blown off.

Kajima bonded Jenare, not the other way around.

[BFG]

...

 

@BFG, ya you're right about that with Pevara. The part that blew me away is just that she felt under duress and her instinct was to immediately bond him; I could see that from a Green, just seemed odd, so I'm waiting to see how it plays out.

 

Fair enough, I guess I choose to believe that she's been thinking of bonding a warder for so long now that it's perhaps not so unexpected.

 

- my internet connection is so slow I only managed to listen to half the chapter once (over about 2 hours), so I'm going to have to wait until the books released before I can get into any in depth arguaments about the actual material :(

[BFG]

response to post in (to paraphrase)

 

"Things BS write better than RJ"

 

^I've asked in a couple of different threads, still waiting for a response.

 

You've been give a response, multiple times in fact as in the Gawyn example posted above.

 

In addition it seems you are missing the point. It's not the arcs themselves that are filler it's the way they are writing.

 

Except that posters have said that the difference between RJ and BS is that it's possible to cut pages/chapters out of BS's work without flinching (and it's in response to this specifically that I've responded at least once), to me this doesn't imply rewriting (maybe it wasn't what was meant, but in context with the discussion at the time I took it literally). Maybe I misunderstood, but to me that sounds like people think you can cut a lot.

 

I haven't actually had a direct response until the Gawyn and Mat in that thread. But from this and other areas I've come up with a list of

• Cutting Hinderstrap - can't argue, although if Mat was closer to how I imagine than I mightn't mind so much.
  

• Rewriting the Gawyn bits - don't care enough, so wouldn't mind if there was less of him. Again the character development was nice.
  

• Cutting Perrins arc - I've already said that I think the character development here is very necessary and that to cut it out would feel as false to me as including it does to other people.
  

• Cutting in half the Eg arc in tGS/ToM - I've already said that I think that was necessary to explain why the AS would accept her as Amrylin. Some of the AS refer to the smaller things she did as a captive as a reason to vote for her as Amrylin and I like that it's not based entirely on the battle against the Seanchan/need to reunite the Tower and has something to do with Eg as a person and leader independent of the other 2. In ToM I like the meeting where the Tower scheme to take control, to me it would seem unrealistic for them to suddenly fall into line (especially the lot from Salidar - RJ didn't stop them scheming after she'd got them to declare war and for them nothing has now changed).
  

With the exception of Hinderstrap it can't be cut without flinching, or at least not in my opinion. I suspect that compared to Luckers, yourself and several (many) others I'm not a die hard fan, I certainly don't understand the prose argument enough except to agree about the lack of subtlety, but I care about the plot and more about the characters and these 'extended' arcs all work towards that. (If you look up Mark Kermodes review of Liberal Arts their's a clip from the film that seems to explain my views on books pretty well :) )

 

So could they all be rewritten to be smaller, probably, but the same argument works for PoD-CoT, rewriting and editing would work wonders for all these books, in which I include tGS and ToM.

 

Other than the above it's all boiled down to alternative interpretations of people/culture, mistakes (such as linking) and quality of writing which I view as seperate from the initial question (although some aspects of the quality of writing does come into it), and are very different arguments.

[Suttree]

So could they all be rewritten to be smaller, probably, but the same argument works for PoD-CoT, rewriting and editing would work wonders for all these books, in which I include tGS and ToM.

 

Other than the above it's all boiled down to alternative interpretations of people/culture, mistakes (such as linking) and quality of writing which I view as seperate from the initial question (although some aspects of the quality of writing does come into it), and are very different arguments.

 

Don't think anyone has ever disagreed with you on CoT and parts of those other books. You make a strong point on the quality of writing however. If Brandon's prose was more polished I bet people wouldn't mind half as much. There are just far too many places though where we get filler and the writing quality varies wildly. Those two things in combination are hard to overcome. For me it's one of the things that make it so hard.

[BFG]

By the end of my reread I may disagree with myself (lol), now up to WH and so far I haven't noticed the drop-off I was expecting (slight stall in LoC, read another book, came back and it all seems better - admittedly that may be in comparison with Orson Scott Cards Gateway book which wasn't as good as I hoped for).

 

Just incidentally do you know who wrote the Avi chapters in ToM? I thought they were RJ, but someone said they were BS?

 

EDIT spelling

[David Selig]

To each his own. I find Gawyn's parts in Sanderson's books more enjoyable to read than most of Jordan's filler (and I don't even like Gawyn). Are they really necessary? Of course not, but the series would've been 5 books long at most if only the stuff which is really necessary remained in it.

[Agitel]

I understand exactly what is meant by unpolished prose. It's something I've brought up with other fans and is something I mentioned quite a bit (in perhaps a more moderate way) when tGS and ToM were all the rage on this board. When I was transitioning between GRRM's ASoIaF series and Brandon's books, it was awkward at first and it took me a few chapters to adapt to Brandon's style. I understand the formal, canonical methods that people are criticizing.

 

Yet I am getting a little annoyed by how frequently this argument comes up. I swear if I see the phrase "unpolished prose" one more time I'll scream! (I'm being facetious and lighthearted in saying that!) I do feel it necessary to point out that a large number of people enjoy Brandon's contributions. They enjoy his prose (more than they do Martin or Jordan *gasp*). Some enjoy GATHERING and TOWERS more than they did some of Jordan's books in the series. I'm not talking about casual fans or the number of sales of Brandon's books. I'm talking about people dedicated to Malazan, ASoIaF, the Wheel of Time, and many other series that I myself haven't gotten involved in. They participate in topics dedicated to these books on general forums on other sites, and many of them have reread each of these series multiple times. They've participated in chapter by chapter commentaries and summaries of the Wheel of Time (and I've seen these groups of people do the same for ASoIaF). And they pretty much all talk positively even today of GATHERING and TOWERS, and just as enthusiastically talk about and recommend Brandon's Mistborn or The Way of Kings to people looking for a fantasy novel. They find Brandon's direct style personable and engaging. They aren't just buying into the hype created by "slapping" his name on The Wheel of Time. These are dedicated and knowledgeable Wheel of Time fans, and generally well-educated people.

 

I think we need to be wary of becoming too caught up in both our dedication to Jordan and perhaps in a few opinions on formal qualities that make good writing. I know some people are approaching this from an education in writing and literature, but I feel that's overwhelming people's opinions. My studies in art history and studio art (I'm not an art major, I'm a math major with a studio art minor) have taught me the perils of getting too involved in canonical opinions of good and bad. Don't take this as me telling you that everything is subjective and relative. I don't take that interpretation. And I do understand the criticism, as I myself have given it both now and especially when the majority opinion has been the other way. While I am probably a recognized Brandon-apologist on this board, don't take that as me being completely opposed to all criticisms, but just as being on the other side of some arbitrary line and trying to encourage what I see as a more reflective and moderate viewpoint.

[Sid]

Just incidentally do you know who wrote the Avi chapters in ToM? I thought they were RJ, but someone said they were BS?

The Rhuidean parts of ToM were by Brandon or almost entirely by him, I'm almost sure of it. I can't recall if he did confirm it himself in an interview, but that seems to be the prevailing opinion. They were my favorite part of either book that he did, because they accomplished their purpose perfectly: A splash of cold water in the face. Also, it's a section of his that actually stands up in re-reads. One theory I have for why they were as good as they were is because he was able to write something without so many constraints. Not only is it the future we've never experienced in any way other than headers and footers, but it's a future that probably isn't going to happen anyway so he could just paint it with his own creativity, and really didn't have the danger of forgetting to stay within the framework of the plot like everywhere else (and that framework is very complex). None of the characters, save for Aviendha, who is basically confused or in shock most of the time, are ones we've ever read a PoV of before, so there's almost no possibility of being jarred out of the telling by people acting out of character. He could be daring there, and it's really quite good, as opposed to other sections when he tries being daring and it results in people acting strange or the mechanics of the world being twisted.