Thisguy's Topic on Brandon's Work

[Finnssss22]

Calling out one sequence of a flawed book and pointing out the difference in prose is hardly what you mention. You know better than that and I wish you could debate this in an honest fashion. You just totally ignored the main point to give a flippant(and innacurate) response.

 

Just because a remark is flipant, doesn't mean it's inaccurate or dishonest.

I read your point as it's ok to let the plot be stagnant or crawl at a snail's pace as long as the writting and description is beautiful.

But it's not ok for the story to progress at great pace, even if a little choppy, if the writting is not up to RJ's standards.

 

Obviously, after investing more than half my own life, 20+ years, reading this series and after the unfortunate death of RJ, I'm looking forward more to how the story ends than being overly picky to how it is written.

I accepted the series conclusion wasn't going to be written perfectly on September 16, 2007, hell, I wasn't even sure it was going to be written at all.

I am much happier to just get the ending and in the mean time, I'm going to try and stay neutral in this debate until all of the material is released. Once I fully take in and appreciate the actual story that ends this epic series, I will have no issue critiquing how it was written, but I'm not going to poison myself from enjoying how the story ends.

[Suttree]

I think he definitely drives the point home Suttree. You, in fact, did exactly what he suggested was occurring.

 

You are under the impression that to have pseudo-intelligent discourse about a subject makes you scholars, thereby justifying what is being said. I believe the subject matter of this post suggests ignorance at its finest.

 

Actually I thank you not to say what I meant and I did nothing of the sort. Further I have degree in Literature so leave of the insults about "pseudo-intelligence" and "scholars". All you have done is attack fellow posters for their views while conveniently not backing your viewpoint with evidence from text on why you think we are wrong. That is not how one discusses art, nor is it debating in an honest fashion. You can attempt to skew other peoples views all you want, it doesn't help your side in the slightest however.

 

@Finnsss first that wasn't my point at all, and ,my response should have made that clear. Second I am astounded that people hold up pace for Brandon as a great strength. We have no idea how good he is with pace until we have a comparable stretch in Stormlight to the middle WoT books. Everyone would have said pace was a strong suit for RJ after TFoH and here we are after KoD(whose pace equalled both TGS and ToM) with the story wrapping up and people act like it was all Brandon and not where we are in the story that has caused things to speed up. As for "just getting to the end" sorry but that isn't nearly good enough for me. It's not good enough for RJ either, he deserves better.

[athrian]

As someone that just joined the forums recently, I would like to offer my perspective as an outsider/newbie.

 

There are a lot of people on here that seem to take these books and themselves way too seriously. This place does not feel very welcoming to new people because of the constant arguments that turn nasty, and people who seem to (whether they mean to or not) have a very condescending tone when they post. We all obviously enjoy the series overall, and of course discussions between people with passionate opinions sometimes go over the top. But this place at times feels very intimidating and that people who don't have transcribed analytics of every book, interview, and comment are unwelcome to say anything, because they're going to get jumped all over by some of the long-time posters for having a contrary opinion, or not remembering what was said on page 128 paragraph 6 sentence 4 of book 7.

[Balefire to da face!]

Actually I thank you not to say what I meant and I did nothing of the sort. Further I have degree in Literature so leave of the insults about "pseudo-intelligence" and "scholars". All you have done is attack fellow posters for their views while conveniently not backing your viewpoint with evidence from text on why you think we are wrong. That is not how one discusses art, nor is it debating in an honest fashion. You can attempt to skew other peoples views all you want, it doesn't help your side in the slightest however.

 

 

So are you one of these people that actually thinks Brandon should have attempted to mimic Jordan's style?

 

I don't see how anyone with even a basic understanding of the fact that writing fiction is more of an art then a science can not support Brandon in his decision not to try to imitate Jordan's style. As it would just resulted in nearly parody levels of weakness.

 

Edit: Inserted the quote to make it clear who I was talking to.

[Suttree]

Actually I thank you not to say what I meant and I did nothing of the sort. Further I have degree in Literature so leave of the insults about "pseudo-intelligence" and "scholars". All you have done is attack fellow posters for their views while conveniently not backing your viewpoint with evidence from text on why you think we are wrong. That is not how one discusses art, nor is it debating in an honest fashion. You can attempt to skew other peoples views all you want, it doesn't help your side in the slightest however.

 

 

So are you one of these people that actually thinks Brandon should have attempted to mimic Jordan's style?

 

I don't see how anyone with even a basic understanding of the fact that writing fiction is more of an art then a science can not support Brandon in his decision not to try to imitate Jordan's style. As it would just resulted in nearly parody levels of weakness.

 

Not in the slightest, that would have been a terrible idea. Are there peopele like that out there? I don't recall coming across any here or at TL. Not sure what made you think about that in this discussion however? Was it comments about polished prose? That is hardly a style...

 

comment are unwelcome to say anything, because they're going to get jumped all over by some of the long-time posters for having a contrary opinion, or not remembering what was said on page 128 paragraph 6 sentence 4 of book 7.

 

Hope you give it some time ath. Think most you find here will be interested in hearing what new members have to say and will be quick with quote and Q&A to help out.

[Balefire to da face!]

Not in the slightest, that would have been a terrible idea. Are there peopele like that out there? I don't recall coming across any here or at TL. Not sure what made you think about that in this discussion however? Was it comments about polished prose? That is hardly a style...

 

When I say style I am not just referring to the words that end up on the page, but the writing process as well.

 

I read in an interview that Jordan gave at one point that showed that he had a very unusual, at least to my experience, way of writing. In which he would edit himself to such a degree that he would sometimes go back after having written as little as a single paragraphs and edit himself.

 

I am not exactly sure what you consider "polished prose" if not a style. I suppose you could be saying that Brandon's style is so sloppy as to not even live up to basic flowing prose which should be expected of any decent author, but I would certainly disagree. And I would argue that to the extent Jordan took it, his prose was likely a result of his severe self editing process. Which itself sounds pretty unique, and would completely immobilize many others if they ever tried to write in such a manner. And, I would argue, often made Jordan's own scenes come off TOO polished in which we have too much pretty prose, and not enough gut emotions.

 

Also, I believe there might be a person or two on here who says that. I particularly recall someone saying that Brandon should have read the series and familiarized himself with Jordan's style for 5 years before even beginning to write.

[skalors3]

Hmm, wondering who those people are Finnssss? As you recall things got ugly back around CoT with the "lost control" arguments going back and forth. Every person I take seriously with their views here had very open discussion on RJ's faults back in the day. It's not as if he was held up as infallible.

 

As I have mentioned for me it comes down to polished prose and that making people more likely to gloss over faults. Although something like TPoD had very real issues the Damona Campaign for example holds some of the best writing in the series. You don't have the jags with uneven quality that you see in say ToM.

 

Firstly, whether you realize your actions or not, it doesn't change the fact that you are indeed guilty of the crime finnsss stated. In the above post, you mildly critiqued RJ while at the same time lauding his work. You simply slammed BS in an off-handed, "flippant", manner.

 

Secondly, I don't know what evidence I need to prove that this subject in and of itself is not only ignorant, but the conversation itself is pseudo-intelligent?

 

Let's start with the fact that you are comparing the writing styles of two different authors. I think that truth itself renders your arguments moot. One author made this series his life's work from 1984. The other author had a very promising career in his own regards and was 'solicited' in helping a grieving woman see her dead husbands final wishes come to fruition. So he continued to write what he wanted to write while providing RJ fans with the story we've been yearning for since we've picked up book 1. That sounds like selfish, lazy writing to me.

 

Next we have sloppy prose. That one should be easy to understand, but obviously it isn't. Let's go back to the above mentioned reason. We have two different authors. One has been writing these characters and has a deep, intimate, understanding of their personalities. One is trying to fill in the blanks. So you criticize the fact that things don't mesh, but ignore the fact that it should've been expected from day 1.

 

Thirdly, you complain about segments when you don't even know who wrote it. You complain about plot twists when you don't have the foggiest idea who suggested it, or who outlined it. I am 100% positive that more informed people approved these books. You still complain.

 

So I call you pseudo-intelligent because while your discussions may be spot on, you fail to understand,or acknowledge, the basic principles behind these short-comings. To accept those principles would show you how dumb the analysis is in the first place.

 

I call you ignorant because you fail to include the truth in your complaints, or you suggest a deep understanding of the truth, while in fact you have none. It is for that reason that these complaints continue.

 

I say it is a character trait because it is. Good or bad.

[Finnssss22]

 

@Finnsss first that wasn't my point at all, and ,my response should have made that clear. Second I am astounded that people hold up pace for Brandon as a great strength. We have no idea how good he is with pace until we have a comparable stretch in Stormlight to the middle WoT books. Everyone would have said pace was a strong suit for RJ after TFoH and here we are after KoD(whose pace equalled both TGS and ToM) with the story wrapping up and people act like it was all Brandon and not where we are in the story that has caused things to speed up. As for "just getting to the end" sorry but that isn't nearly good enough for me. It's not good enough for RJ either, he deserves better.

 

 

C'mon man, you know full well that writting your own story and material is a lot easier than writting someone elses. You know exactly where you're going and how you're going to get there.

I think it's quite obvious where BS had a lot of material left for a given scene where he tries to present it as RJ laid it out and it comes out off or choppy and not like his Stormlight writting. But then you have the big Perrin scenes in ToM, in which BS told us he didn't have a lot of material for, just where it needed to go.

Those chapters are much smoother to me because he could just write it going from point A to point B and not point A to B to C to D to E ect ect.

 

I obviously don't have a degree in Lit but that's what my poor muggle brain sees.

[Suttree]

Firstly, whether you realize your actions or not, it doesn't change the fact that you are indeed guilty of the crime finnsss stated. In the above post, you mildly critiqued RJ while at the same time lauding his work. You simply slammed BS in an off-handed, "flippant", manner.

 

Nope, I praised the quality of writing in one part of a flawed book. The issues with Bradnon's work being uneven are well documented elsewhere and even admitted by Team Jordan in regards to ToM. There is nothing flippant in the statement I made. I do find it odd considering you have provided nothing to back your viewpoint rhoughout this entire discussion and yet make a remark of that nature. You seem to be trying to avoid having to do so by attacking a fellow poster. Once gain I ask give over trying to present what I did in a false light.

 

Let's start with the fact that you are comparing the writing styles of two different authors. I think that truth itself renders your arguments moot. One author made this series his life's work from 1984. The other author had a very promising career in his own regards and was 'solicited' in helping a grieving woman see her dead husbands final wishes come to fruition. So he continued to write what he wanted to write while providing RJ fans with the story we've been yearning for since we've picked up book 1. That sounds like selfish, lazy writing to me.

 

Lol...let's just do away with entire types of literary analysis then. As for the rest I have no idea what the point you are trying to make is. Did someone mention selfish and lazy?

 

Next we have sloppy prose. That one should be easy to understand, but obviously it isn't. Let's go back to the above mentioned reason. We have two different authors. One has been writing these characters and has a deep, intimate, understanding of their personalities. One is trying to fill in the blanks. So you criticize the fact that things don't mesh, but ignore the fact that it should've been expected from day 1.

 

Not at all and Brandon fully admits this is an area that he comes up short in relation to RJ. Not sure why you use the example above because that would affect characterization not prose. But yeah I'm the one using "psuedo-intelligence".

 

Thirdly, you complain about segments when you don't even know who wrote it. You complain about plot twists when you don't have the foggiest idea who suggested it, or who outlined it. I am 100% positive that more informed people approved these books. You still complain.

 

Actually at this point we have a very clear idea for many of the sections people have discussed. Regardles if you could show me here I have done the above with a section that is up for debate in terms of who wrote it I would appreciate it. People have to understand Brandon was responsible for creating far more material than people originally thought.

 

So I call you pseudo-intelligent because while your discussions may be spot on, you fail to understand,or acknowledge, the basic principles behind these short-comings. To accept those principles would show you how dumb the analysis is in the first place.

 

I call you ignorant because you fail to include the truth in your complaints, or you suggest a deep understanding of the truth, while in fact you have none. It is for that reason that these complaints continue.

 

The above is quite simply a very sad statement on your views, good day sir it is obvious you have no interest in an open discussion. You offer zero evidence of your own yet again and show a very flawed understanding concerning the process of criticism. In addition not sure why you seem to take critique so personally? You seem very agitated and resort to insults for some odd reason. t's not a statement on you if you read things differently than others. That is what art is about after all.

 

I obviously don't have a degree in Lit but that's what my poor muggle brain sees.

 

?

 

Why would anyone need a degree to give their opinion on a piece of art?

[skalors3]

Firstly, whether you realize your actions or not, it doesn't change the fact that you are indeed guilty of the crime finnsss stated. In the above post, you mildly critiqued RJ while at the same time lauding his work. You simply slammed BS in an off-handed, "flippant", manner.

 

Nope, I praised the quality of writing in one part of a flawed book. IThe issues with Bradnon's work being uneven are well documented elsewhere and even admitted by Team Jordan in regards to ToM. So give over trying to present what I did in a false light.

 

Let's start with the fact that you are comparing the writing styles of two different authors. I think that truth itself renders your arguments moot. One author made this series his life's work from 1984. The other author had a very promising career in his own regards and was 'solicited' in helping a grieving woman see her dead husbands final wishes come to fruition. So he continued to write what he wanted to write while providing RJ fans with the story we've been yearning for since we've picked up book 1. That sounds like selfish, lazy writing to me.

 

Lol...let's just do away with entire types of literary analysis then. As for the rest I have no idea what the point you are trying to make is. Did someone mention selfish and lazy?

 

Next we have sloppy prose. That one should be easy to understand, but obviously it isn't. Let's go back to the above mentioned reason. We have two different authors. One has been writing these characters and has a deep, intimate, understanding of their personalities. One is trying to fill in the blanks. So you criticize the fact that things don't mesh, but ignore the fact that it should've been expected from day 1.

 

Not at all and Brandon fully admits this is an area that he comes up short in relation to RJ. Not sure why you use the example above because that would affect characetrization not prose. But yeah I'm the one using "psuedo-intelligence".

 

Thirdly, you complain about segments when you don't even know who wrote it. You complain about plot twists when you don't have the foggiest idea who suggested it, or who outlined it. I am 100% positive that more informed people approved these books. You still complain.

 

Actually at this point we have a very clear idea for many of the sections people have discussed. Regardles if you could show me here I have done the above with a section that is up for debate in terms of who wrote it I would appreciate it. People have to understand Brandon was responsible for creating far more material than people originally thoughy.

 

So I call you pseudo-intelligent because while your discussions may be spot on, you fail to understand,or acknowledge, the basic principles behind these short-comings. To accept those principles would show you how dumb the analysis is in the first place.

 

I call you ignorant because you fail to include the truth in your complaints, or you suggest a deep understanding of the truth, while in fact you have none. It is for that reason that these complaints continue.

 

The above is quite simply a very sad statement on how your views, good day sir it is obvious you have no interest in an open discussion. In addition not sure why you seem to take critique so personally? You seem very agitated and edgy, it's not a statement on you if you read things differently than others. That is what art is about after all.

 

I obviously don't have a degree in Lit but that's what my poor muggle brain sees.

 

?

 

Why would anyone need a degree to give their opinion on a piece of art?

 

I should point out that I wasn't directing anything to you directly in those last few paragraphs, though I can certainly see how it comes off that way, I used "you" in context to all of those who complain. I don't know you or your complaints, but I know the complaints in general. So If you think I pointed that at you, I apologize. It was meant as a comment to all detractors.

[skalors3]

Also Suttree, I should have been more specific in my definition of what I meant by prose. I should have said dialogue, which is an aspect of prose.

 

I am not sure where BS takes part in the characterization process of Matt, Perrin, Egwene etc.. but to each his own.

 

Secondly, where has Team Jordan stated anything about BS's writing style in ToM? I haven't seen anything and I am curious.

[Suttree]

Also Suttree, I should have been more specific in my definition of what I meant by prose. I should have said dialogue, which is an aspect of prose.

 

I am not sure where BS takes part in the characterization process of Matt, Perrin, Egwene etc.. but to each his own.

 

Secondly, where has Team Jordan stated anything about BS's writing style in ToM? I haven't seen anything and I am curious.

No worries and thank you for clarifying in that first post.

 

I just left work early but ill pull quotes later for you. The prose part comes from a BS quote and the uneven bit comes from Peter Alshtrom when discussing how they changed Brandon's writing process to address the flaws in ToM since they had to "get it rigt" for AMoL.

 

Just to be clear my overall point is I wish people could use this thread to break out pieces of the text and explore pros/cons. It should stay in this thread and not leak out so as not to derail other conversations. What isn't right to me is attacking/ attempting to discredit the analysis or a certain group of posters. I can assure you many of us have spent a great deal of time and care reaching these conclusions. It was not with an easy mind that our views have gradually changed.

[Barid Bel Medar]

Alright, everyone needs to take a step back. This is not a thread to complain about other posters. It is to state your thoughts on Brandon Sanderson's work. You may provide examples to show what another poster has said is no true, or respectfully disagree with what they have said. I will not have people constantly attacking other posters character, intellect or passion for the books.

 

I repeat, this is not a place to complain about other people expressing their opinions. If you have a problem with it, take it up with either myself, Yoniy0 or Luckers. If you do not agree, you have a right to say so and explain why without attacking people. If you simply don't like it, you may PM someone to respectfully state your objections, or PM one of the mods, as above. Do not come and complain about people here. It is not the place.

 

Discuss the work, not the people.

[Saken]

Can someone please provide an example of how RJ's prose is polished where BS's is not.

 

After reading some of the posts I tried to figure out what prose is and what makes one authors better than the other. From what I can gather, whether prose is polished or not is pretty subjective, and I am curious as to what some of you all think.

[Centauri25]

RJ wrote: Rand viewed him as unlearned

 

BS wrote: Rand thought he was a dumbhead

[Barid Bel Medar]

Prose definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose

 

I won't try and convince anyone of anything. I do not want to get into such a debate, and I do agree that quality prose is subjective.

 

However, I will provide some quotes, Brandon himself is pretty clear that he believes his Prose are weak, weaker than Jordan's at least.

INTERVIEW: May 25th, 2010

Pat's Fantasy Hotlist: Interview with Brandon Sanderson (Verbatim)

 

BRANDON SANDERSON

I think I'm getting better at description and prose, which has always been the weakest part of my novels (I feel).

 

INTERVIEW: Jun 4th, 2011

London Signing Report - Thomas C (Paraphrased)

QUESTION

One fan asked what Sanderson felt was the main difference in the writing style between himself and Jordan.

 

Sanderson felt Jordan was a better prose craftsman, which I agree with.

INTERVIEW: 2010

Twitter: Fan Names in the WoT Books (Verbatim)

 

BRANDON SANDERSON

That's more of a prose issue than anything else, though—an area where RJ was very strong and I'm relatively weak.

 

INTERVIEW: Apr, 2012

Afternoon Tea with Brandon Sanderson - Luckers (Paraphrased)

 

 

BRANDON SANDERSON

 

Brandon was talking about the differences between his writing and Jim’s, and choosing not to try and match styles because it couldn’t be done. He describe it as 'I do serviceable prose, where Jim wrote beautiful prose', and that there have been scenes he’s come to where he’s simply had to say 'I just have to do this my way, there’s nothing for it'.

[Balefire to da face!]

On the flip side, in On Writing Stephen King promotes a much more workman-like style of prose that uses very few adjectives and keeping description to a bare minimum. Going so far as to say that overuse of adjectives is usually the result of an author not trusting himself or his readers to pick up on things. A very basic example would be an author that feels the need to say someone "shouted loudly".

 

I've heard a few people like King's work, so yeah, pretty subjective. I hope Brandon is speaking in the context of writing in the WoT, because Jordan's style is hardly a model of definitive quality prose. Simply one way to do it.

 

While I don't disagree with those who say that Brandon could be heavy handed with giving us information on characters, I think it's just a different kind of heavy handedness that Jordan himself indulged in. Which was over description.

[Suttree]

I've heard a few people like King's work, so yeah, pretty subjective. I hope Brandon is speaking in the context of writing in the WoT, because Jordan's style is hardly a model of definitive quality prose. Simply one way to do it.

 

RJ's is just one type of solid prose and solid prose most certainly is not connected to overuse of adjectives. Cormac McCarthy...probably our greatest American author has unbelievable prose in a very different style than RJ.

[Saken]

RJ wrote: Rand viewed him as unlearned

 

BS wrote: Rand thought he was a dumbhead

 

I was kind of hoping for something real. Humorous though.

 

Prose definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose

 

I won't try and convince anyone of anything. I do not want to get into such a debate, and I do agree that quality prose is subjective.

 

However, I will provide some quotes, Brandon himself is pretty clear that he believes his Prose are weak, weaker than Jordan's at least.

INTERVIEW: May 25th, 2010

Pat's Fantasy Hotlist: Interview with Brandon Sanderson (Verbatim)

 

BRANDON SANDERSON

I think I'm getting better at description and prose, which has always been the weakest part of my novels (I feel).

 

INTERVIEW: Jun 4th, 2011

London Signing Report - Thomas C (Paraphrased)

QUESTION

One fan asked what Sanderson felt was the main difference in the writing style between himself and Jordan.

 

Sanderson felt Jordan was a better prose craftsman, which I agree with.

INTERVIEW: 2010

Twitter: Fan Names in the WoT Books (Verbatim)

 

BRANDON SANDERSON

That's more of a prose issue than anything else, though—an area where RJ was very strong and I'm relatively weak.

 

INTERVIEW: Apr, 2012

Afternoon Tea with Brandon Sanderson - Luckers (Paraphrased)

 

 

BRANDON SANDERSON

 

Brandon was talking about the differences between his writing and Jim’s, and choosing not to try and match styles because it couldn’t be done. He describe it as 'I do serviceable prose, where Jim wrote beautiful prose', and that there have been scenes he’s come to where he’s simply had to say 'I just have to do this my way, there’s nothing for it'.

 

Got it, thanks.

 

On the flip side, in On Writing Stephen King promotes a much more workman-like style of prose that uses very few adjectives and keeping description to a bare minimum. Going so far as to say that overuse of adjectives is usually the result of an author not trusting himself or his readers to pick up on things. A very basic example would be an author that feels the need to say someone "shouted loudly".

 

I've heard a few people like King's work, so yeah, pretty subjective. I hope Brandon is speaking in the context of writing in the WoT, because Jordan's style is hardly a model of definitive quality prose. Simply one way to do it.

 

While I don't disagree with those who say that Brandon could be heavy handed with giving us information on characters, I think it's just a different kind of heavy handedness that Jordan himself indulged in. Which was over description.

 

Have you ever read Malazan Book of the Fallen and if so, did you think that SE had polished prose?

[Balefire to da face!]

Have you ever read Malazan Book of the Fallen and if so, did you think that SE had polished prose?

 

Afraid not. David Eddings and aSoFaI is probably the two series that are next on my list. I just don't read much Fiction nowadays.

[skalors3]

Have you ever read Malazan Book of the Fallen and if so, did you think that SE had polished prose?

 

Afraid not. David Eddings and aSoFaI is probably the two series that are next on my list. I just don't read much Fiction nowadays.

 

I would wait until aSoFaI is done before picking them up. I don't see the author surviving the telling and he has made it clear that the story dies with him. It is a great series though, as it stands at least.

[Balefire to da face!]

I will keep that in mind. The wait for WoT has been about one part reward, and two parts frustrating to me. There is definitely some charm to waiting for series, as the existence of WoT sites show. And it makes you appreciate the series more then if you can't just go through it from beginning to end. But the wait also magnifies disappointment if an entry isn't that great. And, there's always the potential of it not being finished, like you said.

[Saken]

Have you ever read Malazan Book of the Fallen and if so, did you think that SE had polished prose?

 

Afraid not. David Eddings and aSoFaI is probably the two series that are next on my list. I just don't read much Fiction nowadays.

 

Gotcha.

 

On the whole, I enjoyed reading RJ's material more than I do BS's material strictly for how it feels when I read it.

 

I will say this, at one point after book 7 or so, I almost quit reading the WoT. It was killing me.

 

Thankfully, I suffered through because the ending will be epic.

[draborn88]

One reason I don't really dip into a lot of these threads is because the subject of prose tends to be brought up and to be honest, I really don't know what the hell it is. Even with the wiki on it that Barid posted I really didn't know what exactly I was reading, haha. I'm a very blunt dude and maybe that's the reason Brandon's way of writing doesn't bug me, even though I really do love the way RJ's books are written. So if there's a way to explain prose in simpler terms for someone like myself, it'd be much appreciated.

[Saken]

One reason I don't really dip into a lot of these threads is because the subject of prose tends to be brought up and to be honest, I really don't know what the hell it is. Even with the wiki on it that Barid posted I really didn't know what exactly I was reading, haha. I'm a very blunt dude and maybe that's the reason Brandon's way of writing doesn't bug me, even though I really do love the way RJ's books are written. So if there's a way to explain prose in simpler terms for someone like myself, it'd be much appreciated.

 

I am with you. I spent two hours trying to find examples of prose and all I was able to find was ways to make your writing better which improves your prose.

 

I really enjoyed reading the words in The Wise Man's Fear but I didn't really like reading the words in The Way of Kings. I liked the story in The Way of Kings better than the story in The Wise Man's Fear.

 

Enjoyment of reading the words I guess is me enjoying that specific author's prose.