Thisguy's Topic on Brandon's Work

[MarkDiLillo]

Yes, I believe Jason Denzel & Jennifer Liang are two. I argued for hours on this site that the delay for AMoL was positive and that this would be Brandon's best work because they were actually making a change to ensure the quality was better. Pretty surprised and disappointed back when Brandon announced he was done considering how much of the process there still was to go and there wasn't much feedback yet. Why not use all the time alloted?

 

Edit: thisguy does have a point about Team Jordan doing a better job as well.

 

Wow. I am actually astounded. My distaste for his work methods, work ethics, and personal sense of pride in his work has now reverted to actually disliking the guy on a personal level. He basically did "take the money and run" if what you said is true.

 

Since you don't actually know the guy personally that's a bit ridiculous. Find me one person that's met the man that doesn't go on and on about what a nice guy he is. Let's leave the personal slander crap out of this. It's this type of thing that really galls me.

 

I am justified to form an opinion about somebody and state my opinion. It is not slander. The guy may come across as the nicest guy ever, but professional actions like these speak volumes about someone. I personally dislike people who professionally disrespect someone elses life work that they cared about deeply. I am willing to say "hey maybe things went down a little differently than we think" because it is unlikely that I will ever know the details behind this, but I am being generous to say that if it's true the guy had plenty of extra time to work on this book, refused to use any of that time, and refused to submit the book to beta readers to ensure he got things right despite being fully aware there were past issues that he needed help with...well then I find that to be showing enough disrespect to the readers and RJ/WoT that I can say I personally don't like the guy.

 

Let's hope there is a lot more to it than the above? Because if that is the entire story then I'd be surprised if any long time fan of WoT can sit here and say they don't dislike him.

 

I'll also agree that some of these issues were flagrant enough that Team Jordan should have been all over them too so I agree that it is not entirely Brandon Sandersons fault that the final product isn't what we all wanted.

[flinn]

What I would really like to see is some of the complainers write their own chapters. Just rewrite one Mat chapter from any of the 3 Sanderson's the way you think RJ would have written it.

Then post it here so we can all sit here and rip it into shreds.

[MarkDiLillo]

What I would really like to see is some of the complainers write their own chapters. Just rewrite one Mat chapter from any of the 3 Sanderson's the way you think RJ would have written it.

Then post it here so we can all sit here and rip it into shreds.

 

Yo - better idea. Propose that to a group of professional authors who make their career out of writing and selling books. Then it would actually mean something.

[Mario Cole]

We'll make sure to tell them we'll question their work ethic and personality too...

[Suttree]

What I would really like to see is some of the complainers write their own chapters. Just rewrite one Mat chapter from any of the 3 Sanderson's the way you think RJ would have written it.

Then post it here so we can all sit here and rip it into shreds.

 

As out of line as Mark D's post was above this and ElRand's are equally bad. I have said it before but it truly is a sad era we live in when any dissenting view is labelled "complaining" or "bashing". This knee jerk reaction (seriously don't think I have seen ElRand post about anything else despite how much he claims to hate talking about it.) needleslly derails threads and detracts from any honest debate. One needs to be able to differentiate and not just lump all critique together because you don't like anyone calling the quality of his work in to question. Realize carefuly analyzing a work of art is about the highest respect you can pay an author, growth does not come from fawning praise and turning a blind eye to flaws. One need to stop focusing on the posters and talk about the actual work. If people are so wrong give actual counter points instead of throwing lowest common denominator insults and personnel attacks.

 

I truly hope you both are not tossing people like Luckers and myself who care so much about this series and have dedicated so much time coming to reasoned critiques into your blanket condemnation. As you can see I also agree that Mark D went too far but I don't hide behind insults and I certainly will not allow name calling to stop me from speaking my mind.

 

Edit: As pointless as flinn's request is in asking posters to write their own chapters to then compare it to a professional author I am saving his post. I hope one day to be able to reference how close this came to unwittingly hitting the nail on the head for something. Should be interesting...

[TootThatHorn]

What I would really like to see is some of the complainers write their own chapters. Just rewrite one Mat chapter from any of the 3 Sanderson's the way you think RJ would have written it.

Then post it here so we can all sit here and rip it into shreds.

 

I like this idea, then we should get some middle school football players and toss them in the NFL and make fun of them for not holding on to the ball when they get tackled. Brandon took the job, and maybe he should have thought it through more before accepting it. I don't know the situation but maybe he was awestruck by the honor of completing WoT or thought it would be easier than it was, but the fact of the matter is that he is a professional author which subjects him to scrutiny, especially taking on such a task. Honestly I thought it strange that he got offered the job because of a eulogy he wrote. Did other authors turn down an offer? I would think quite a few very established writers probably thought to themselves for many different reasons "there is no way I'm taking on someone else's work."

 

Like Sutt said, it is a form of flattery to be at a point to be criticized, and you learn more from mistakes than from successes, or should. The thing that boggles me is that as a reader, mistakes or inconsistencies can be pointed out instantaneously but not by an author who is nose deep and a team of professional editors. But that's just the way it is I suppose.

 

Some of the small things that get chopped down even I think are a little out there, that is simply going from one author to the next, but there are certainly some glaring things that are just bad, Mat is the easiest example, especially since he acknowledged it from the get go. However I praise him for his work on Perrin, I've been happy how he did on that. Then Rand in tGS, he did an excellent job of making me absolutely hate his guts and then turn around and love him again and feel sympathy for him. But then we cut to ToM and I'm wondering where the hell is he?

 

Call people out for just being haters if you must, but don't generalize anyone that doesn't skin their knees in front of BS just out of respect. The ones that are pointing out legitimate grievances are pointing them out well; if you don't like it then have a valid counter point rather than being derogatory towards them.

 

Don't like sex and violence on T.V.? Change the channel. Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay married. Don't like constructive criticism? Don't read the post.

[Shawnchan]

What I would really like to see is some of the complainers write their own chapters. Just rewrite one Mat chapter from any of the 3 Sanderson's the way you think RJ would have written it.

Then post it here so we can all sit here and rip it into shreds.

 

As out of line as Mark D's post was above this and ElRand's are equally bad. I have said it before but it truly is a sad era we live in when any dissenting view is labelled "complaining" or "bashing". This knee jerk reaction (seriously don't think I have seen ElRand post about anything else despite how much he claims to hate talking about it.) needleslly derails threads and detracts from any honest debate. One needs to be able to differentiate and not just lump all critique together because you don't like anyone calling the quality of his work in to question. Realize carefuly analyzing a work of art is about the highest respect you can pay an author, growth does not come from fawning praise and turning a blind eye to flaws. One need to stop focusing on the posters and talk about the actual work. If people are so wrong give actual counter points instead of throwing lowest common denominator insults and personnel attacks.

 

I truly hope you both are not tossing people like Luckers and myself who care so much about this series and have dedicated so much time coming to reasoned critiques into your blanket condemnation. As you can see I also agree that Mark D went too far but I don't hide behind insults and I certainly will not allow name calling to stop me from speaking my mind.

 

Edit: As pointless as flinn's request is in asking posters to write their own chapters to then compare it to a professional author I am saving his post. I hope one day to be able to reference how close this came to unwittingly hitting the nail on the head for something. Should be interesting...

 

Kettle=black.= Ridiculous.

 

Rude. Passive aggressive.

 

Surmising. Elitist.

 

Above all. Passive aggressive. Sly digs. Thinly veiled insults. Bully is how you read. Sorry. You do sound that way. Reread your posts.

Just went through the whole thread. From your first post you challenged someone for only being here for a couple months. That means what? They are not Qualified?(your words). Your opinions are obviously skewed. A relatively new poster, that you try to shut down with force. Self important much?

We are readers. We are reading you.

 

Why should we just accept your opinion as law? Because your as subtle as a blunt axe?

[Shawnchan]

What I would really like to see is some of the complainers write their own chapters. Just rewrite one Mat chapter from any of the 3 Sanderson's the way you think RJ would have written it.

Then post it here so we can all sit here and rip it into shreds.

 

As out of line as Mark D's post was above this and ElRand's are equally bad. I have said it before but it truly is a sad era we live in when any dissenting view is labelled "complaining" or "bashing". This knee jerk reaction (seriously don't think I have seen ElRand post about anything else despite how much he claims to hate talking about it.) needleslly derails threads and detracts from any honest debate. One needs to be able to differentiate and not just lump all critique together because you don't like anyone calling the quality of his work in to question. Realize carefuly analyzing a work of art is about the highest respect you can pay an author, growth does not come from fawning praise and turning a blind eye to flaws. One need to stop focusing on the posters and talk about the actual work. If people are so wrong give actual counter points instead of throwing lowest common denominator insults and personnel attacks.

 

I truly hope you both are not tossing people like Luckers and myself who care so much about this series and have dedicated so much time coming to reasoned critiques into your blanket condemnation. As you can see I also agree that Mark D went too far but I don't hide behind insults and I certainly will not allow name calling to stop me from speaking my mind.

 

Edit: As pointless as flinn's request is in asking posters to write their own chapters to then compare it to a professional author I am saving his post. I hope one day to be able to reference how close this came to unwittingly hitting the nail on the head for something. Should be interesting...

 

Kettle=black.= Ridiculous.

 

Rude. Passive aggressive.

 

Surmising. Elitist.

 

Above all. Passive aggressive. Sly digs. Thinly veiled insults. Bully is how you read. Sorry. You do sound that way. Reread your posts.

Just went through the whole thread. From your first post you challenged someone for only being here for a couple months. That means what? They are not Qualified?(your words). Your opinions are obviously skewed. A relatively new poster, that you try to shut down with force. Self important much?

We are readers. We are reading you.

 

Why should we just accept your opinion as law? Because your as subtle as a blunt axe?

[Zewe]

What I would really like to see is some of the complainers write their own chapters. Just rewrite one Mat chapter from any of the 3 Sanderson's the way you think RJ would have written it.

Then post it here so we can all sit here and rip it into shreds.

 

I like this idea, then we should get some middle school football players and toss them in the NFL and make fun of them for not holding on to the ball when they get tackled...

 

...Like Sutt said, it is a form of flattery to be at a point to be criticized, and you learn more from mistakes than from successes, or should. The thing that boggles me is that as a reader, mistakes or inconsistencies can be pointed out instantaneously but not by an author who is nose deep and a team of professional editors. But that's just the way it is I suppose.

 

...Don't like constructive criticism? Don't read the post.

 

I don't really have any stake whatsoever in this discussion, nor any standing in this community - attacking my postcount/registration date is meaningless, so please refrain.

Anyway, I just wanted to take a moment to point out the irony here. I'd like to think the above excerpts speak for themselves, but from some of what I've seen in this thread, I worry that that may be too subtle, so, a simple question:

 

In what way are you qualified to give Sanderson "constructive criticism"? In what way are any of you qualified to do so? I'm by no means defending the man or his work, here - I enjoy it, but that's purely subjective, etc. - nor am I suggesting that "published author" status is any way meaningful, but what makes you qualified to constructively criticize anything this man puts out? What are your literary accomplishments, credentials, whatever? You're perfectly entitled to your own opinions on the matter, absolutely, but when you start calling it "constructive criticism" and insisting that others take it as such, you're suggesting that you're Brandon Sanderson's peer, his colleague, his equal. You're not. Talking about how you don't like what he's done to WoT or your favorite characters, or the insane level of detail that RJ excelled at, is one thing, but when you try to elevate your own personal grievances to the status of concrit, you are indeed claiming equivalent or superior literary talent.

 

That said, the suggestion that you write your own Mat chapter(s) is a reasonable one. You can't very well constructively criticize someone if you can't do it better, now can you?

 

edit: Due to the high level of autism in this thread, I'd like to clarify that the last question is indeed rhetorical. Don't write a three-page reply just about that. The question answers itself.

[Suttree]

Kettle=black.= Ridiculous.

 

Rude. Passive aggressive.

 

Surmising. Elitist.

 

Above all. Passive aggressive. Sly digs. Thinly veiled insults. Bully is how you read. Sorry. You do sound that way. Reread your posts.

Just went through the whole thread. From your first post you challenged someone for only being here for a couple months. That means what? They are not Qualified?(your words). Your opinions are obviously skewed. A relatively new poster, that you try to shut down with force. Self important much?

We are readers. We are reading you.

 

Why should we just accept your opinion as law? Because your as subtle as a blunt axe?

 

Sorry mate but you misconstrued that entirely. Thisguy knew exactly what I meant which is how could he say "every time" new material is released all that happens is bashing towards Brandon when he wasn't here for TGS and ToM. He understood that just fine. He is not qualified because he wasn't here when they were released hence can't comment on it. I sincerely hope once you realize the mistake you take back your post above and apologize. I did none of the things you accuse me of and I thank you not to place false meanings to my words. I stand by the validity of all I have said in this thread and have no idea why you would single me out given how even I have been compared to some of the content in this thread. No worries though, some times it's easy to miss things like that online.

 

I don't really have any stake whatsoever in this discussion, nor any standing in this community - attacking my postcount/registration date is meaningless, so please refrain.

Anyway, I just wanted to take a moment to point out the irony here. I'd like to think the above excerpts speak for themselves, but from some of what I've seen in this thread, I worry that that may be too subtle, so, a simple question:

 

In what way are you qualified to give Sanderson "constructive criticism"? In what way are any of you qualified to do so? I'm by no means defending the man or his work, here - I enjoy it, but that's purely subjective, etc. - nor am I suggesting that "published author" status is any way meaningful, but what makes you qualified to constructively criticize anything this man puts out? What are your literary accomplishments, credentials, whatever? You're perfectly entitled to your own opinions on the matter, absolutely, but when you start calling it "constructive criticism" and insisting that others take it as such, you're suggesting that you're Brandon Sanderson's peer, his colleague, his equal. You're not. Talking about how you don't like what he's done to WoT or your favorite characters, or the insane level of detail that RJ excelled at, is one thing, but when you try to elevate your own personal grievances to the status of concrit, you are indeed claiming equivalent or superior literary talent.

 

That said, the suggestion that you write your own Mat chapter(s) is a reasonable one. You can't very well constructively criticize someone if you can't do it better, now can you?

 

To start who attacked any ones post count or standing? why is that something you would be paranoid about? Second you can't rightly step in and blast every person on our side of the discussion and then claim you don't want an answer. Since you asked I have a B.A. in Literature from UCSB. I now work for a major US apparel company in SF where copy and content writing for marketing campaigns is a fair part of my job. My schooling and works puts me in a position where I feel condisant in makig a valid criticism on someones writing. One doesn't need any of those things to judge a literary work however and nobodies opinions are any less valid without them. One of the best analysis of Thomans Pynchon's "Gravitys Rainbow" I've ever seen came from someone with no degree. Your take is not only patently false it is insulting to those who enjoy reading in that manner. Luckers for example has no background in literature and yet was asked by Brandon himself to turn in a consteuctive critique of the first two books from a fans perpspective. Now I don't know, your post is either trolling or full of extremely flawed logic. In addition I truly feel sorry for you if you don't think it is your place to give analysis on works of art. You are missing a good deal of the fun.

 

Edit: Another question Zewe how is commenting on the quality of writing and pointing out flaws that not only have been acknowledged by Team Jordan but also widely commented on by a large portion of the fandom a personnel grievance? Keep in mind as you read through the thread just about every single poster admits the critique is valid, they just don't like the extremes some of the less reasoned posters take it to.

[dwn]

Some thoughts in no particular order:

 

This prologue avoided the worst writing idiosyncrasies that bothered me in ToM--namely the unnecessarily pretentious wording used by some characters to show they were Smart Like Narg. The worst of these was the overuse of "reports" when describing any and all second-hand information.

 

Aviendha's use of Rand's first name alone did give me a mental stumble. Using a pet name in front of others like that should have at least made the other Wise Ones raise an eyebrow or something.

 

I greatly enjoyed the way the Talmanes thread was interspersed among the other sections. A great use of narrative flow to build tension.

 

I agree Pevara was weakly portrayed, but I can forgive that since the scene wasn't from her point of view. Unfortunately that whole section also felt empty of any other characterization or plot.

 

Dreamshard and Dreadbane are a bit irksome, but I can shrug them off except to say that 'dreamshard' should have been rendered in the old tongue.

 

Regarding the tone/quality of BS's work on these books:

 

When talking about literature I think it's extremely relevant and important to analyze and critique the nuances of the writing. TGS and ToM brought about a major shift in style and tone, some of which is easily overlooked as inevitable with a switch in authors, some of which was necessary in order to finish the series in a reasonable time.

 

Yet some of the changes seem to be clearly the result of rushed writing that disregarded the in-world language conventions, and incomplete editing and polishing that didn't correct those obvious problems. It's much harder to forgive these missteps, particularly after two books.

 

-- dwn

[Shawnchan]

Kettle=black.= Ridiculous.

 

Rude. Passive aggressive.

 

Surmising. Elitist.

 

Above all. Passive aggressive. Sly digs. Thinly veiled insults. Bully is how you read. Sorry. You do sound that way. Reread your posts.

Just went through the whole thread. From your first post you challenged someone for only being here for a couple months. That means what? They are not Qualified?(your words). Your opinions are obviously skewed. A relatively new poster, that you try to shut down with force. Self important much?

We are readers. We are reading you.

 

Why should we just accept your opinion as law? Because your as subtle as a blunt axe?

 

Sorry mate but you misconstrued that entirely. Thisguy knew exactly what I meant which is how could he say "every time" new material is released all that happens is bashing towards Brandon when he wasn't here for TGS and ToM. He understood that just fine. He is not qualified because he wasn't here when they were released hence can't comment on it. I sincerely hope once you realize the mistake you take back your post above and apologize. I did none of the things you accuse me of and I thank you not to place false meanings to my words. I stand by the validity of all I have said in this thread and have no idea why you would single me out.

[TootThatHorn]

What I would really like to see is some of the complainers write their own chapters. Just rewrite one Mat chapter from any of the 3 Sanderson's the way you think RJ would have written it.

Then post it here so we can all sit here and rip it into shreds.

 

I like this idea, then we should get some middle school football players and toss them in the NFL and make fun of them for not holding on to the ball when they get tackled...

 

...Like Sutt said, it is a form of flattery to be at a point to be criticized, and you learn more from mistakes than from successes, or should. The thing that boggles me is that as a reader, mistakes or inconsistencies can be pointed out instantaneously but not by an author who is nose deep and a team of professional editors. But that's just the way it is I suppose.

 

...Don't like constructive criticism? Don't read the post.

 

I don't really have any stake whatsoever in this discussion, nor any standing in this community - attacking my postcount/registration date is meaningless, so please refrain.

Anyway, I just wanted to take a moment to point out the irony here. I'd like to think the above excerpts speak for themselves, but from some of what I've seen in this thread, I worry that that may be too subtle, so, a simple question:

 

In what way are you qualified to give Sanderson "constructive criticism"? In what way are any of you qualified to do so? I'm by no means defending the man or his work, here - I enjoy it, but that's purely subjective, etc. - nor am I suggesting that "published author" status is any way meaningful, but what makes you qualified to constructively criticize anything this man puts out? What are your literary accomplishments, credentials, whatever? You're perfectly entitled to your own opinions on the matter, absolutely, but when you start calling it "constructive criticism" and insisting that others take it as such, you're suggesting that you're Brandon Sanderson's peer, his colleague, his equal. You're not. Talking about how you don't like what he's done to WoT or your favorite characters, or the insane level of detail that RJ excelled at, is one thing, but when you try to elevate your own personal grievances to the status of concrit, you are indeed claiming equivalent or superior literary talent.

 

That said, the suggestion that you write your own Mat chapter(s) is a reasonable one. You can't very well constructively criticize someone if you can't do it better, now can you?

 

edit: Due to the high level of autism in this thread, I'd like to clarify that the last question is indeed rhetorical. Don't write a three-page reply just about that. The question answers itself.

 

First off if you're going to quote me don't hack off the parts that help make the point.

Second, heard of book clubs?

Last, people can criticize all they want. Then they have the pleasure of finding people that are like minded. Then in a proper discussion people should be making counter points to the argument, perhaps pointing out something they did enjoy or thought was well written, which OH, I did that, even while throwing out gripes!! There is no reason to go in to personal attacks against people. State your case as to why someone may be wrong about their point on the topic they made, have a rebuttal, not just a "well who are you anyway."

[Suttree]

What I would really like to see is some of the complainers write their own chapters. Just rewrite one Mat chapter from any of the 3 Sanderson's the way you think RJ would have written it.

Then post it here so we can all sit here and rip it into shreds.

 

I like this idea, then we should get some middle school football players and toss them in the NFL and make fun of them for not holding on to the ball when they get tackled...

 

...Like Sutt said, it is a form of flattery to be at a point to be criticized, and you learn more from mistakes than from successes, or should. The thing that boggles me is that as a reader, mistakes or inconsistencies can be pointed out instantaneously but not by an author who is nose deep and a team of professional editors. But that's just the way it is I suppose.

 

...Don't like constructive criticism? Don't read the post.

 

I don't really have any stake whatsoever in this discussion, nor any standing in this community - attacking my postcount/registration date is meaningless, so please refrain.

Anyway, I just wanted to take a moment to point out the irony here. I'd like to think the above excerpts speak for themselves, but from some of what I've seen in this thread, I worry that that may be too subtle, so, a simple question:

 

In what way are you qualified to give Sanderson "constructive criticism"? In what way are any of you qualified to do so? I'm by no means defending the man or his work, here - I enjoy it, but that's purely subjective, etc. - nor am I suggesting that "published author" status is any way meaningful, but what makes you qualified to constructively criticize anything this man puts out? What are your literary accomplishments, credentials, whatever? You're perfectly entitled to your own opinions on the matter, absolutely, but when you start calling it "constructive criticism" and insisting that others take it as such, you're suggesting that you're Brandon Sanderson's peer, his colleague, his equal. You're not. Talking about how you don't like what he's done to WoT or your favorite characters, or the insane level of detail that RJ excelled at, is one thing, but when you try to elevate your own personal grievances to the status of concrit, you are indeed claiming equivalent or superior literary talent.

 

That said, the suggestion that you write your own Mat chapter(s) is a reasonable one. You can't very well constructively criticize someone if you can't do it better, now can you?

 

edit: Due to the high level of autism in this thread, I'd like to clarify that the last question is indeed rhetorical. Don't write a three-page reply just about that. The question answers itself.

 

First off if you're going to quote me don't hack off the parts that help make the point.

Second, heard of book clubs?

Last, people can criticize all they want. Then they have the pleasure of finding people that are like minded. Then in a proper discussion people should be making counter points to the argument, perhaps pointing out something they did enjoy or thought was well written, which OH, I did that, even while throwing out gripes!! There is no reason to go in to personal attacks against people. State your case as to why someone may be wrong about their point on the topic they made, have a rebuttal, not just a "well who are you anyway."

 

Don't even let yourself get worked up Toot. They are obviously fishing for a response. I do find it very odd that some people seem to take any criticism as a personnel affront. Again it is truly sad when you can't even have an honest discussion on the merits of a literary work on a site dedicated to books. Funny how none of my professors ever told us we weren't allowed to critique. You would have thought they would just do away with lit and art departments in general if what Zewe says is true. ;)

[Shawnchan]

The reason I posted is because I just sifted through 8 pages of you passively aggressively bullying people. NOT COOL.

and asking for an apology? Sorry. Not in this life.

[Suttree]

The reason I posted is because I just sifted through 8 pages of you passively aggressively bullying people. NOT COOL.

and asking for an apology? Sorry. Not in this life.

 

So you admit you got it wrong and yet still refuse to apologize for saying I was attacking someone's standing/post count? Nice mate, pure class that. You do understand that meanings get misconstrued in writing online all the time correct(for evidence see your first post)? Not sure why you seem so angry but let me be clear, my opinion is no more valid than anyone else's and in no way do I mean to bully in this thread, in fact the opposite is happening. Any number of people can attest to my history here and let you know how off base you are so provide examples of me doing as you claim or give over. If you read all 8 pages you get I have called out someone who actually was bashing and understand that even those that dont agree with me have referenced my balanced history here. in fact the pattern in this discussion has gone 1. Critique. 2. Personnel attack/shouting down of said person offering a critique. You continued that pattern and are either attempting to stop our side from posting or invalidate our opinion. Again I thank you to not attribute false meaning to my words and am truly sorry you seem so angry. All I want to do is discuss the merit of the work. Is it ok if we focus on that?

[TootThatHorn]

The reason I posted is because I just sifted through 8 pages of you passively aggressively bullying people. NOT COOL.

and asking for an apology? Sorry. Not in this life.

 

Wanting to come off as more humorous please. So, note the bold if you will. That is an apology for not willing to apologize lol.

[KakitaOCU]

So I'm sure this has been brought up in other threads, but just wanted to touch on the concerns about minor details.

 

How many of these smaller changes, if occurred under Jordan's hand, would you have let go? And how does the lack of extra sentances spelling out a change coincide with the complaint that BS is too blunt?

 

Example with the Aviendha using Rand vs Rand al'Thor.

 

Can you honestly tell me that if RJ had lived and written the full series, and had written that particular change just the same, that you'd be calling him out on it? Or would you just read it, take the fact that it is a change as evidence that she's more comfortable and move on?

 

Because that's how I took it, and this comes from someone who's not all that casual, who does have a lot of education and background involving writing and involving finding the little details in such things.

 

I read Aviendha saying Rand and thought "It's nice that she's finally calming down enough, growing into an adult and accepting her love for this man that she no longer feels she has to force out his whole name to hide that affection from others."

 

So I do find it strange that such a small thing bothers so many people. One specifically saying BS should have added a sentence spelling it out. But then we have things where a sentence repeats something, which can be read as emphasis and nothing more (M'Hael. One of the Chosen.) and people are up in arms about how BS is hitting us over the head with a hammer.

 

This exercise is almost like Leigh's comments on re-reading various sections with the gender's switched. When you see a glitch, reread it "knowing" that RJ wrote it and see if you still see a glitch or if you just infer based on what was written, that something's new or changed.

 

Side note, yes, new to DragonMount as a poster, but have been reading these since 94, have been very active in the community here and there, from Leigh's re-read to way back when on AOL Chats when there was a WoT RP going on actively for about two years.

[Shawnchan]

The reason I posted is because I just sifted through 8 pages of you passively aggressively bullying people. NOT COOL.

and asking for an apology? Sorry. Not in this life.

 

Wanting to come off as more humorous please. So, note the bold if you will. That is an apology for not willing to apologize lol.

 

For self proclaimed readers irony should be apparent.

[TootThatHorn]

So I'm sure this has been brought up in other threads, but just wanted to touch on the concerns about minor details.

 

How many of these smaller changes, if occurred under Jordan's hand, would you have let go? And how does the lack of extra sentances spelling out a change coincide with the complaint that BS is too blunt?

 

Example with the Aviendha using Rand vs Rand al'Thor.

 

Can you honestly tell me that if RJ had lived and written the full series, and had written that particular change just the same, that you'd be calling him out on it? Or would you just read it, take the fact that it is a change as evidence that she's more comfortable and move on?

 

Because that's how I took it, and this comes from someone who's not all that casual, who does have a lot of education and background involving writing and involving finding the little details in such things.

 

I read Aviendha saying Rand and thought "It's nice that she's finally calming down enough, growing into an adult and accepting her love for this man that she no longer feels she has to force out his whole name to hide that affection from others."

 

So I do find it strange that such a small thing bothers so many people. One specifically saying BS should have added a sentence spelling it out. But then we have things where a sentence repeats something, which can be read as emphasis and nothing more (M'Hael. One of the Chosen.) and people are up in arms about how BS is hitting us over the head with a hammer.

 

This exercise is almost like Leigh's comments on re-reading various sections with the gender's switched. When you see a glitch, reread it "knowing" that RJ wrote it and see if you still see a glitch or if you just infer based on what was written, that something's new or changed.

 

Side note, yes, new to DragonMount as a poster, but have been reading these since 94, have been very active in the community here and there, from Leigh's re-read to way back when on AOL Chats when there was a WoT RP going on actively for about two years.

 

I thought the same thing about the Avi part. As far as the swapping of RJ and BS thing, that's a little iffy to me simply because BS did take over. He is going to have to deal with being compared. So it's tough to, what, compare RJ to RJ then, and whether he would be critiqued? I don't know for everyone else, but I'm in a re-read and I know I've got some books before tGS that I'm not totally thrilled to be reading again. Also I've expressed in other threads I don't like how RJ wrote Moiraine, I found her overly dramatic, even though she is still one of my favorite characters.

 

Also for me, overall I give the books as a whole that BS has written a great review, but in the details I'll find things that rub me wrong. I can't imagine anyone being 100%.

[Suttree]

So I'm sure this has been brought up in other threads, but just wanted to touch on the concerns about minor details.

 

How many of these smaller changes, if occurred under Jordan's hand, would you have let go? And how does the lack of extra sentances spelling out a change coincide with the complaint that BS is too blunt?

 

Example with the Aviendha using Rand vs Rand al'Thor.

 

Can you honestly tell me that if RJ had lived and written the full series, and had written that particular change just the same, that you'd be calling him out on it? Or would you just read it, take the fact that it is a change as evidence that she's more comfortable and move on?

 

Because that's how I took it, and this comes from someone who's not all that casual, who does have a lot of education and background involving writing and involving finding the little details in such things.

 

I read Aviendha saying Rand and thought "It's nice that she's finally calming down enough, growing into an adult and accepting her love for this man that she no longer feels she has to force out his whole name to hide that affection from others."

 

So I do find it strange that such a small thing bothers so many people. One specifically saying BS should have added a sentence spelling it out. But then we have things where a sentence repeats something, which can be read as emphasis and nothing more (M'Hael. One of the Chosen.) and people are up in arms about how BS is hitting us over the head with a hammer.

 

This exercise is almost like Leigh's comments on re-reading various sections with the gender's switched. When you see a glitch, reread it "knowing" that RJ wrote it and see if you still see a glitch or if you just infer based on what was written, that something's new or changed.

 

Side note, yes, new to DragonMount as a poster, but have been reading these since 94, have been very active in the community here and there, from Leigh's re-read to way back when on AOL Chats when there was a WoT RP going on actively for about two years.

 

Hey Kakita, welcome to DM. First off let me say no one around here will bash you for lack of a post count, it just doesn't happen that often. It was brought up in this thread because someone who seemed like they just wanted to sidetrack the discussion(attacking posters instead if discussing the text) misconstrued what was being said.

 

As to your other points as has been mentioned the thing with Avi alone isn't a big deal. When you add it up however with "bloody ashes" instead of "blood and bloody ashes", and phrases like "saidared" and "Seanchaness" etc. it is a pretty big miss on the the little details. It's those things being off that hurt the immersion level in those books and can bounce you out of the narrative.

 

As for the extra chosen sentence again, alone no biggie but its part of an over all pattern of Brandon not trusting either his own writing to convey a point or the readers to understand it which leads to blunt prose and plot work. Characters constantly feel the need to announce their intentions or think through actions in a ham fisted way. Its a "tell not show" situation. That is one of the more repeated issues and Leigh has brought it up a decent amount in her rereads. Bottom line I love some of what Brandon has done(perrin, dark rand) but its so wildly inconsistent. Mat comes off totally wrong as Brandon readily admits. There Is unpolished prose, poor characterization, and lowest common denominator plot work sprinkled through out. Another frequent complaint is his dumbing down of one character when two people come together in conflict. It's seems like nothing can get resolved without that being applied at times. Something people do need to keep in mind however is RJ was critiqued as well. He was hammered when CoT came out and it is only much later some started to realize they still enjoyed the wriin and it is essentially a good set up for KoD. With Brandon we have seen the opposite. He was almost universally praised upon release of TGS and it is only after various rereads that things have shifted in the fandom.

 

When talking about literature I think it's extremely relevant and important to analyze and critique the nuances of the writing. TGS and ToM brought about a major shift in style and tone, some of which is easily overlooked as inevitable with a switch in authors, some of which was necessary in order to finish the series in a reasonable time.

 

Yet some of the changes seem to be clearly the result of rushed writing that disregarded the in-world language conventions, and incomplete editing and polishing that didn't correct those obvious problems. It's much harder to forgive these missteps, particularly after two books.

 

-- dwn

 

Well said dwn. It's especially hard to forgive hearing how the process has gone for AMoL. We all know its Brandon's style to "slap down words"(BS said that) and go back later which just makes it so odd this extra time with the last book is not being used by the author. I mentioned it earlier but I backed him to the hilt when the delay was announced. Thought for sure it would be used to address the polish issues that Team Jordan admits exist. In fact they said they needed the extra time to get AMoL "right".

[Deadsy]

It's pretty weird to see people asking whether we'd say the same things about RJ. RJ was ripped to shreds on a pretty consistent basis when he was alive.

[KakitaOCU]

Deadsy, that was part of my point. :)

 

Suttree, I do understand where you're coming from. I don't agree, but I understand. That was kind of why I asked what I did. All of those little things fit in with what I said, I used Aviendha as the example, but we could go through it all.

 

Bloody Ashes? Personally, as I got older I found a lot of my phrasing shrunk simply because I found saying a shorter version carried the same emphasis and meaning without taking as long. No reason that Mat, with his newfound adulthood as it were, couldn't do the same. (That doesn't exclude some other stuff, but the cursing thing itself never leapt out at me.)

 

Your post also does a fair job at pointing out what I was getting at in the comparison. You dislike the small changes because you feel they aren't set up properly and don't make sense, while others see them as alright and natural evolutions that there was no need to explain. Then you dislike something that's blunt because you don't feel that he needed to spell out things flatly like that because we can infer meaning from the writing and context.

 

Ultimately, your opinion is your opinion, and I won't really fault you for it, but it just seemed strange to me that BS is suffering a bit of darned if you do, darned if you don't.

 

As for my replace BS with RJ suggestion, I wasn't really trying to imply RJ was or wasn't critiqued, I just meant to ask if everyone would honestly have had the same issues with these smaller changes if they had been written by RJ vs being written as they were.

[TristanWebb]

The issue isn't with one person changing it though, there is no blood and ashes in any text that BS has written. It was a choice to either change something that didn't really matter but was a catchphrase for the entire series or he didn't notice until he had written so much he didn't want to change it.

 

And that is something I have a problem with. The details are what the fanbase latches on to in every case, single lines in movies, catch phrases, iconic coats. You can change major things with far less backlash than you change the little things.

 

Changing the details is either blind arrogance or just blindness, and I think neither is excusable, especially when you could easily have included the fanbase in the detail correcting so easily.

[MarkDiLillo]

Deadsy, that was part of my point. :)

 

Suttree, I do understand where you're coming from. I don't agree, but I understand. That was kind of why I asked what I did. All of those little things fit in with what I said, I used Aviendha as the example, but we could go through it all.

 

Bloody Ashes? Personally, as I got older I found a lot of my phrasing shrunk simply because I found saying a shorter version carried the same emphasis and meaning without taking as long. No reason that Mat, with his newfound adulthood as it were, couldn't do the same. (That doesn't exclude some other stuff, but the cursing thing itself never leapt out at me.)

 

Your post also does a fair job at pointing out what I was getting at in the comparison. You dislike the small changes because you feel they aren't set up properly and don't make sense, while others see them as alright and natural evolutions that there was no need to explain. Then you dislike something that's blunt because you don't feel that he needed to spell out things flatly like that because we can infer meaning from the writing and context.

 

Ultimately, your opinion is your opinion, and I won't really fault you for it, but it just seemed strange to me that BS is suffering a bit of darned if you do, darned if you don't.

 

As for my replace BS with RJ suggestion, I wasn't really trying to imply RJ was or wasn't critiqued, I just meant to ask if everyone would honestly have had the same issues with these smaller changes if they had been written by RJ vs being written as they were.

 

Quite simply, the issues would not have existed with RJ. Or with a multitude of other authors. To be frank, these issues would not have existed if *I* wrote the series and I am far from a professional author (note that I am not saying that I could do a better job than Brandon Sanderson - just stating that the details we are disappointed with would be done right). These are quality issues and not intentional changes. As I said before, when so many little things are so far off...it makes it really hard to look at the big things that are off and just say "well he tried his best". If he couldnt spend a few minutes getting the small things right it is likely he couldnt spend the much greater time needed to get the big things right. At the end of the day, it comes down to a lack of desire to spend the time to get it done right.

 

RJ was critiqued often, but I don't remember seeing much critique regarding the quality and consistency of his writing/plots. Most of his critiques that I recall revolved around his personal writing style. An example would be Brandons addition of that extra sentence to drive his point homebecause he doesnt trust his readers to figure it out. I personally find that annoying and a sign of a serious weakness in writing (I actually find it such a sign of weakness that I wonder how BS could be a professional author and still write that way), HOWEVER I also mark that off as a writing style difference. I can forgive that because it is the guys personal habbit/writing style and while it is a weakness, it is a part of the package when we signed that author up. The mistakes that really hurt are the ones that are obvious and clear mistakes from a lack of attention to detail and a lack of polish. I mean...really...blood and bloody ashes is something that would have taken just 3 seconds to open a page and verify/correct. The thing with using Rand (as someone above pointed out is a PET NAME for the Aiel) is so obvious that it makes me wonder if he even spent more than 45 seconds trying to analyze the Aiel culture before he wrote Avi scenes...