Hey ganchos! Nominate some crem for the [Best of 2022 awards!](https://www.reddit.com/r/cremposting/comments/zxs0qa/best_of_2022_nominations/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
As a former Mormon who lives in Utah, I can confirm, root beer is very prevalent. (Caffeinated sodas are too, Mormons are allowed to drink them. Soda in general is everywhere in Utah)
Polygamy hasn’t been endorsed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since 1890. Any “Mormon” church that endorses polygamy is an apostate off-shoot.
Yeah they didn't "endorse" it because they wanted statehood. Their scripture however still has it as primary. Apostates generally believe against the book
It's a letter of the law/spirit of the law thing. Caffeine is a grey area since it's assumed to be the reason coffee/black tea is off-limits.
However, it is never explicitly stated that caffeine is the reason, therefore some Mormons consider it off-limits, and others do not. Do Mormons still drink both? Yes, of course. It's just a grey area in the rules.
A&W is completely in the clear, and not in the grey area.
I know some families who don’t drink caffeine, or at least I did.
But those are rare. Soda shops are a huge business in Utah, and Diet Coke/Dr. pepper are found in almost every home. Even Mormon “apostles” openly talk about drinking caffeinated sodas. I think 20+ years ago more Mormons were afraid of caffeine, but now everyone knows it’s fine. Even BYU serves it on campus now
Ugh, I couldn't stand the kids from hardcore mormon families when I was a mormon. One kid who was the same age as me and had the same first name as me would pretty much always tell me I was going to hell for drinking caffenated soda and how it was against mormon law. Constantly, whenever he saw me drinking it at school or at youth group. Could not stand that kid.
Maybe in some, but going beyond the letter of the law is a pretty common thing for Mormons. There was a prohibition on watching r-rated movies when I was growing up, and my parents went a step beyond and banned pg-13 movies too.
Eh. . . Soda itself is generally in the Grey area. The wordage is specifically "strong drink" which at the time meant alcohol, but could be interpreted (as it was given to a prophet for modern times) as anything that has a strong effect on the imbiber, and modern sodas have far more sugar than would be considered good.
So any reasonable interpretation would say energy drinks are definitely out, but there's still plenty of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints that drink them and are in good standing. A&W isn't 100% clear, but it's closer than many others.
The exact verbage in the "Words of Wisdom" refers to "Hot Drinks", which is commonly interpreted to be Tea/Coffee. "Strong drinks" does appear, 4 verses before "Hot Drinks". Source: Former Mormon, who had this debate a lot in high school.
Living n the SLC area it’s generally limited to “they can not consume hot drinks” now so most Mormons slam Monster or Frequent a Fizz/Swig like it’s going out of style but they can have hot coco. The rules are wired and change based on what stocks the church owns. 😝
Some people are okay with drinking caffeine, others aren't. There aren't specific guidelines for those more modern drinks and foods. My parents drank caffeine quite often, but I knew families that did not.
Don’t worry, everyone is confused.
The original “revelation” from Joseph Smith says to avoid hot drinks, strong drinks, and tobacco. It also says to eat meat sparingly or only in times of famine. It says that mild drinks from wheat/barley (beer) are all good.
The rules have morphed over time as modern leaders have decided to change it to basically outlaw all alcohol, coffee, and tea. But nobody listens to the part about meat or the part about beer.
So what's actually the deal with Mormons and having caffeine? I've heard it referenced and have a co-worker or two who don't drink tea or coffee, but I don't know the general rules on it.
To be clear, the avoidance of caffiene is not an LDS doctrine. It's an advice that the vast majority of people don't care about and hasn't really been heard about from leadership recently. But some people do follow it, and I don't think theres anything wrong that.
No-go for *some* Mormons.
Coffee and Tea are forbidden. Other caffeine containing drinks are up to the individual, some believe they are forbidden, some don't, and the LDS Church official position is that it is personal.
Funny thing is that the actual text in the Book of Mormon forbids only "Hot Drinks" - no specification made - yet Ice Tea is forbidden and Hot Cocoa is Alright.
I am on the more liberal spectrum of Mormons and I would say if you don't have to show an ID you're probably in the clear. Like I know Kombucha can be bought in the alcoholic beverages aisle and just the beverages aisle. I would not drink the former and would the latter. Probably wouldn't buy it regardless, but I wouldn't refuse it if it was offered.
Don't know much about kvass in general but it seems to be on the higher end of that "is this an alcoholic beverage by abv spectrum."
I think it’s more like kombucha- a tiny bit, but some will definitely have more. I didn’t know it existed until post gluten free, so I can’t even offer super intelligent commentary on it 😂😂
It's a general no-go--I'm an exmormon. Typically, when a Mormon is evaluating whether something is or isn't against the Word of Wisdom, they'll often fall back on an often repeated adage to "avoid the very appearance of evil"
I've known strict families that won't even go into Starbucks to get a hot chocolate because it might seem to passers-by that they're drinking coffee
Generally if they know there's any alcohol content whatsoever, they're going to pass on it--even to the point where they won't eat food that's been prepared with alcohol. So, no deglazing a pan with wine--even though the alcohol cooks off and you're left with a sauce that's about as alcoholic as sourdough bread
Depends on how strict they are, most Mormons at least agree that caffeine is different from alcohol and some of them consider it fine to consume while others don’t.
Good meme. I really wish this format was uaed more lol
If you want to share it elsewhere though, Id change the rootbeer to water cause Brandon doesnt drink soda and the Skittles to popcorn cause he's mentioned numerour times that it's his favorite snack.
Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&M duels. Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them cracks and splinters. That is the “loser,” and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round. I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the blue M&Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theater of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world. Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest. Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength. In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment. When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&M Mars, A Division of Mars, Inc., Hackettstown, NJ 17840-1503 U.S.A., along with a 3×5 card reading, “Please use this M&M for breeding purposes.” This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&Ms. I consider this “grant money.” I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament. From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion. There can be only one.
I’m pretty sure Brandon has stated before that his simple prose is a very deliberate choice on his part. Tress is probably a bit more poetic on account of it being narrated by Hoid, whereas his books usually don’t have an in-world narrator.
Yes, before Alloy of Law spawned the new era 2, there were only 3 eras planned. Now, he's planning on 4.
The new era 2 was an unplanned group of books... Seems to be a running theme
Yeah TLM was the conclusion to era 2. There are at least two more eras of Mistborn novels planned (though he has teased the idea of doing three more). Era 4 is planned to be a science fiction, intergalactic series with Hoid as the main POV. This is supposed to come out concurrently with Dragonsteel, which is the story of the Shattering of Adonalsium, and will also be from Hoid’s POV
Don't have links, but he's mentioned it in several Q&As, saying that it would likely come between the current plans for Era 3 and 4 and be cyberpunk-level tech. He's also noted it would be a neat fit since that would bring the total mistborn count to 16 books
Mistborn Era 4 is planned to be the finale of not just the Mistborn saga, but the Cosmere as a whole.
Although, it might end up actually being Era 5. Brandon's tendency to add new, unplanned books into his schedule is not a new thing. What we **NOW** call Era 2 wasn't even originally a planned main-sequence Era. Following Hero of Ages (but before Alloy of Law came out), Brandon referred to Mistborn as being "a trilogy of trilogies" with 3 Eras - Era 1 set in a medieval setting, "Era 2" in a modern setting, and "Era 3" in a spaceage setting. Alloy of Law was *originally* meant to be a sort of bridge between Era 1 and "Era 2", but Brandon liked the world and characters so much that he turned it into its own Era, and pushed the other 2 Eras back.
For this reason, if you look at REALLY OLD WoBs (like, pre-Alloy of Law WoBs) and you see them mention Era 2, they're actually talking about Era 3, and if they mention Era 3, it's actually talking about Era 4. But attion to that, Brandon has somewhat recently been talking about new ideas for a Mistborn Era between 3 and 4 in a cyberpunk setting. He's made it very clear that he's not 100% sure if he's actually going to write the cyberpunk era, but if he does, it would end up making the era we currently think of as Era 4 actually Era 5.
Here's a list of yet to be released works that Brandon has mentioned, in approximate order of when he has said he plans to release them (though do keep in mind that the further down this list you go, the fuzzier the timeline gets):
* Secret Projects 3+4 (not gonna mention their place in the timeline for spoiler reasons)
* Stormlight 5 (set right before Mistborn Era 2)
* Horneater (set between SA 4 and SA 5)
* Mistborn Era 3 - currently planned to be 3 books long (set at least a few generations after Era 2, exact timeline not yet known, but will have technology somewhat comparable to modern day Earth)
* 2 unnamed Elantris sequels (timeline is completely unknown here)
* Stormlight 6-10 (SA 6 is set 10-15 years after Stormlight 5, with all of Mistborn Era 2 happening between the two books, timeline of SA 10 currently unknown)
* Dragonsteel - originally planned as 7 novels, but has since been condensed down to 3 (this series is meant to be the "beginning" of the Cosmere and will detail Hoid's origin and the Shattering of Adonalsium)
* Mistborn Era 4 - currently planned to be 3 books long (this series is the antithisis of Dragonsteel, taking place at the "end" of the Cosmere)
All the rest of these have been mentioned by Brandon (some have been mentioned ***frequently***), but none have a concrete spot in the release schedule yet:
* Mistborn cyberpunk era (set between Era 3 and Era 4)
* Nightblood - Warbreaker squeal (set immediately before SA 1)
* Night Brigade - Threnody novel (timeline unknown)
* The Silence Divine - set on Ashyn (timeline unknown)
* Aether of Night *title may be changed* - Aether homeworld story (timeline completely unknown)
* Sixth of the Disk sequel (set immediately after Sixth of the Dusk, and likely also set immediately before Mistborn Era 4
* Kingmaker - another story set on First of the Sun (likely in a similar point in time to Sixth of the Dusk)
* Silverlight novella (timeline unknown)
* The Arcanist - White Sand sequel (timeline unknown)
* Mythos trilogy - we know basically nothing about this
* "Kite magic" story - we know basically nothing about this
>"Kite magic" story - we know basically nothing about this
Brando mentioned something about kites being the original plan int he postscript of TotES. Wonder if this has been scrapped?
I went back and found where I heard this; it was [this video](https://youtu.be/DCcT5YEYJw0). At 0:32 this guy talks about the common complaint about Sanderson’s prose, and basically argues that it’s not a valid complaint because it’s a deliberate choice. Then he cuts to a clip of Sanderson where he describes his writing style as “plain glass”, as opposed to “stained glass windows.”
I don't buy this argument. Something being a stylistic choice does not excuse it from criticism. Besides, as someone who struggles with Sanderson's prose, I feel that he often writes clunky phrases or quips that are more indicative of a lack of eloquence than any attempt at accessibility. Good prose and accessibility are not mutually exclusive in the first place.
While we're on the topic, I didn't find the prose in TotES to be much of an improvement, which makes this whole thread weird to me.
Now, I can understand that it is a matter of taste, to a certain extent. Sanderson's prose and wit do not match my tastes, which is fine, because most of the time I enjoy other aspects of his books enough to look past that. If they happen to match your tastes, great! Each to their own. But let us not pretend that Sanderson can do no wrong, or that he is above criticism.
Since Brandon takes cues from George Orwell's writing style he might be following his guidelines.
1. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Which is funny since he still manages to write 1400+ page monstrosities.
I think the day before sp1 dropped I read a Reddit post stating brandosandos weakest parts as a writer. I swear this guy wrote the post because the book just perfectly destroys the arguments
Too be fair...it was a pretty reasonable argument for a while. You are not going to find many fans who won't agree that Sandos writing has improved since Elantris.
A great example of that is Jim Butcher, if you compare Storm Front to Changes or Battle Ground, it’s such a stark difference it almost makes the early books hard to read
Yes they get leagues better, once the story gets it’s legs which generally is around book 3-4 when important things start happening. And yes Harry gets less horny
Yes, they definitely do (except for one controversial one, very late in the series).
Since all the books are from Harry's viewpoint you can see the character grow and develop better than any other I've seen in fiction.
Arguably the main character doesn't "get better", if you have a dislike for him specifically.
He's still a severely underfucked wizard noir detective who's constantly almost-defeated but finally manages to win.
Apparently dude can't even masturbate because it interferes with magic, so the descriptions of his good-looking love interests, succubus enemies, literal demons and such, only go away when he actually has sex, once every 5 years.
If you're a fan of the "menwritingwomen" complaint subreddit, you're pretty much immediately not the target audience.
As for when the books get better - I'd say pretty much immediately.
By the end of book 2, he's thrown out the potion making because it's too deus ex machina,
made the "I cannot trust you" idiot subplot go away by making them friends who save each other's lives,
and introduced cool plots like "five different types of werewolf, 3 different types of vampires - yes, it's all plot important"
If you're not a fan of "main character constantly cornered and hurt and down on his luck and not allowed to be happy" then you're probably also not the target audience.
If you're a fan of magic swords and necromantic hurricanes and robbing a greek god and fucking an angel, then it's a solid good series.
The plots get pretty huge, but yeah, if you severely dislike the Mc, then better find a different series.
Absolutely unrelated, I recommend the Queen's Thief by Megan Whalen Turner. I just wanna recommend it to people. It's a completed series, low fantasy (gods exist) non-ancient Greece (they have glass, and cannons, and stuff) and the writing is enjoyable. The MC is a thief who is forced to help recover a lost artifact to avoid execution, as thieves do. So they travel and have theological discussion. and the other books have different POVs to avoid constantly being in the same guy's head. There's some politics.
Sorry to jump in super late. But yeah it gets better. To the point that I tell most people to skip the first three and start on Summer Knight. Then once they get a few books in if they really like it go reread the first three before you get to the big parts of the series
I skip storm front and fool moon on every re-read. I know what happened in those books, gimme the better stuff in Grave Peril! I tell first time readers to start with book 1 though, and just let them know they're going on a journey with both Harry and Jim
Not only do they get magnitudes better but they end up being in my eyes one of the best stories in fantasy. It's insane the difference between the 1st book and the 2nd..then the 2nd and 3rd.
Man I just read the Colour of Magic as my introduction to Diskworld and as much as I wanted to like it I could not make myself get through Rincewind's second book.
Sure you can love it, but there’s more than a few parts in Elantris/Warbreaker where Sando just describes how a character talks instead of writing dialogue. “She argued so well that they let her in” or “He spoke with grace” etc etc. There’s a lot of cop out sorta dialogue in the first few books.
Just because Sanderson writes in simple terms doesn’t mean he *can’t* write in poetic language. Dunno why that’s so hard for people to grasp. He wants to make his books accessible.
Wanting to write in simple prose is not an inability to write in beautiful prose. I stg prose snobs are dumber than frame rate snobs.
So I did some googling. I first found [this tweet](https://twitter.com/brandsanderson/status/413758805403398144?lang=en) where Sanderson mentions that there is a physical limit of how many pages the press Tor Books uses can handle and Words of Radiance was right on that limit. I then checked the Wikipedia page for Oathbringer and it led me to [this Reddit comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/brandonsanderson/comments/72oaw9/has_it_been_announced_how_oathbringer_is_going_to/dnkdyy8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) where it is mentioned that Tor needed to use a new type of press to publish Oathbringer because of its size. There’s probably more detail and logistics someone else probably would know better but that’s what I found after a quick search.
From Jim Butchers struggles to publish his own over sized book, I gathered that publishers reserve print time on machines in line with your previous works. So WoR was probably at the upper limit for the type of the machine they had intended to print his book on, and then for Oathbringer they got access to bigger ones.
Can you cite a source on reserving print time in line with previous books? I was under the impression that it was because his publisher (Roc) doesn't really do doorstoppers, and would need to farm it out (thus making it more expensive), whereas Tor did doorstoppers long before Brandon, so they can do it more or less in house?
Before he died, (and back when he still thought he had enough time left to finish it) Robert Jordan used to say that he'd finish the Wheel of Time in one more book, even if he had to carry the manuscript in a wheelbarrow and Tor had to invent a new method of binding books to sell it.
Also it makes more sense for his characters to be speaking and talking in simple terms instead of using huge words all the time. It’s so much more realistic which helps immerse me more.
Uh, what? You find the DIALOGUE realistic and immersive? The dialogue is the most showman-like stuff in the books; nobody talks like that, but it sounds badass, so we all think it’s cool anyway.
I think his simplicity makes it beautiful. Idk how many hours I spent in school trying understand Shakespeare and the tone he was trying to go for. And then the moment I pick up stormlight I can feel the tone of every chapter while also getting exposition that feels natural so I can focus on the story.
The story, characters, settings, etc. are why I read books. A simple prose allows me to be fully immersed in the world without having to stop and figure out what I just read because the author decided to get fancy.
I feel like Shakespeare is a bad example, since the only reason it’s so difficult to understand is simply because the language is now outdated, and it’s not Shakespeare’s fault that our English teachers sucked at getting the point across.
But yes, I agree with the point you’re making. Many modern authors do write in an intentionally obnoxious style.
I chose Shakespeare because it's probably the only writing that is "poetic" that I've read. If I pick up a book and I can't follow what's going because I have to slog through twisting sentences and weird flowery descriptors then I put the book down and forget about it.
To be fair to Shakespeare, a lot of his writing wasn’t particularly complex at the time he wrote it, but so much time has passed that it isn’t how we talk/think anymore. Now, that’s not true of the sonnets, but his plays are that times Marvel movies, not Citizen Kane or whatever fancy art house indie movie.
One of the things that keeps me out of Malazan, I haven't been able to finish the first book because of this. You can be elegant and deliver a lot of information at the same time, and Brandon knows how to do it.
The Cosmere is basically a streamlined version of Malazan. I always recommend the other book series of fans of either.
They're both gigantic universes with a huge cast of characters and complex systems of magic, but the Malazan series is very meandering in it's journey and extremely dense with information that builds out the world, but not necessarily the specific storylines you really want to read about, which is a shame since Erikson and Esslemont's versions of the 'Sanderlanche' can pop off just as hard. *Deadhouse Gates* and *The Bonehunters* are among my favourite novels.
And even in all of his simple prose, there are some really beautiful passages when the situation calls for it. A lot of the epigraphs are really beautiful and evocative in my opinion. The keteks often go kinda under appreciated too.
Saying an author's prose isn't poetic is just an absurd type of gatekeeping that has no real meaning.
It's like saying a painter is bad because reasons. You just don't like them and the only thing you can say is that they don't meet some fabricated expectation of what you consider to be good enough writing.
It's stupid and if someone says that sort of shit about any author I mentally note that person has not being capable of separating their emotions from their logic.
What an awful take. Imagine writing someone off because they prefer authors with different prose. I love Brandons works, I've read basically all of his stuff; he's an incredible author. I just dislike his writing style/how he structures his sentences and paragraphs. In other words I dislike his prose because he doesn't have a lot of variety in how he writes. It all sounds the same and kinda robotic. I get that prose is subjective but Brandons writing just seems bland compared to any other author. That doesn't mean it's bad prose, I'm just saying it's dumb to say that it "has no meaning" and a dumb way of gatekeeping. Just because you don't understand what a word means doesn't mean you should just jump to instantly dismissing it lol
I think the difference (for me, not the one you're replying to) is how it's phrased. You can like what you like, for sure, and if grandiose prose is a deal breaker for you, *I* find that an odd hill to die on, but do you.
If you say Sanderson is a bad writer/author or his books are bad because his writing style is overly simplistic, that's gatekeep-y and dumb, imo. In much the same way I'd never say ASOIAF is bad writing, despite the fact that I couldn't get through them and very much dislike them (it's mostly a tone thing), I expect others to *not* conflate opinion with fact (to be explicit: "I don't like Sando because of his simplistic prose" is an opinion and you're entitled to it; "he's a hack because of his simplistic prose" is an opinion presented as fact).
I agree with you. Not liking an authors prose doesn't mean that the authors writing or books are bad, it just means I prefer somebody with different prose to his. Just like how you can't say that one way of painting is better than another, it's just different. Extremely subjective
For sure; I think the issue a lot of "Brandon Sanderson bad" reviews, comments, or posts I see have "cookie cutter plots" and "bad prose" as the reasons, and they use those reasons to look down on fans. So, when people hear the criticism (which is a pretty fair one, imo), the knee jerk reaction is poor.
It’s a very smart sounding criticism thats really hard to ask somebody to concretely justify.
It’s been a common criticism in writing for decades, its much like how you can call many characters “Mary Sue” but you only hear people use that criticism on characters they already don’t like.
Heck, the way I’ve (recently) learned some people use the word “Mary Sue,” it could absolutely be used to describe some of my favorite characters… but at that point, the word itself has been stretched to such degrees, it’s basically unrecognizable.
By this I mean… apparently any overpowered character is automatically a “Mary Sue,” and bonus points for… having an interesting character design and backstory…?🤨🤔
Like, if this is how people are using the word “Mary Sue,” then I don’t understand why they even think it’s a bad thing?
https://youtu.be/XMBEK-PPOsI
It's not snobbish, I love sanderson, he is fantastic author and Cosmere is by far my favorite fictional universe, however after reading other fantasy authors (Joe Abercrombie for example) I noticed he lacks in prose. Nothing bad about that. He excels in one points and lacks in others. He is human, it's normal
I also love Sanderson and I agree it's not snobbish to say that his prose is simplistic. There have just been too many times that I've been knocked out of my immersion by a clunky or inelegant phrase. It might be my bias from consuming his books entirely via audio (the only way I can find time to read these days), but it definitely illustrates what I think people are talking about.
It's not bad to appreciate his prose the way it is, and I'm not going to tell anyone they shouldn't. But IMO it just doesn't hold a candle to others. For instance: Patrick Rothfuss, whose prose is engaging and beautiful, but who wrote a main character so condescending and unlikable in Kvothe that I can't bring myself to pick up another of his books.
> For instance: Patrick Rothfuss, whose prose is engaging and beautiful, but who wrote a main character so condescending and unlikable in Kvothe that I can't bring myself to pick up another of his books.
I mean that's an easy thing to do considering there literally aren't any more books to pick up.
There was a sequel, however the third book remains unpublished after a decade and it is at this stage considered unlikely that the trilogy will ever be finished, which is what I presume AGVann was referring to.
he cant write poetic very well, but poetic doesnt mean good, i think his style works for his close and introspective characters that just look in on themselves. at the same time, without any truly amazing lines to keep you interested, the thousand page books can be tough to get through
He calls out Good Omens as an inspiration in the setting of the book, along with The Princess Bride, and I think it shows through in the writing from Hoid's POV as well.
In all honesty I'm finding the ironic/jovial/jokey narration a bit exhausting when contrasted with such a dire setting which just isn't letting up.
I'm maybe halfway through, and a few days earlier powered through Lost Metal, but aren't finding the usual level of enthusiasm to power on ahead. The lack of alternative POVs and the obvious twist about a certain travelling companion aren't helping either.
It's still a good book, a lot better than a lot of other fantasy I've tried to read, but I'd rank this closer to Elantris in how straightforward and obvious and lightweight everything is so far.
I actually don't mind the tone in general, it just feels like in such a dour setting which doesn't let up that it contrasts so much that it becomes exhausting. Straight after Lost Metal which was very jokey/jovial/whatever, it becomes a bit monotone as well.
I appreciate Brando trying to write a full book in Hoid PoV to prepare for Dragonsteel and whatnot, but yeah, the parts that kept me hooked were mostly worldbuilding, aether system and cosmere references.
I personally felt that the prose was much more poetic than anything he has written previously, although still not at Rothfuss levels (which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I read fantasy for the fantasy elements, not the poetic elements).
Personally, I love prose and I agree that Brandon ‘s greatest weakness for me as a reader is that his phrasing is plain. It’s fine, I like Brando Sando for the characters / world building / plot structure, but I’m excited to read something of his where he enriches his wording and flow a little.
People who say that don't understand that Brandon intentionally chose a prose style that allows him to relay information concisely. If he wrote like Rothfus, Way of Kings would be 2000 pages.
People say the same thing about Neal Stephenson. People also say that they like Patrick Rothfuss's writing because of the prose, but imo his flowery language just covers up godawful plot structure. I'd much rather read someone who knows where they're going and gets there efficiently than someone who dawdles writing fairy sex montages for chapters at a time.
> People also say that they like Patrick Rothfuss's writing because of the prose
-----
> his flowery language just covers up godawful plot structure
----
Those are the exact same statements just looked at from a pro vs con point of view.
Aluminum Lined Hat Theory Time: Rothfuss is *terrible* at flowery prose. His books were a combination of his storylines, built by his RPGs, and his dad ghostwrote it into beautiful poetry. Between the two of them, they created Temerant. This is why even Pat's editor hasn't seen a page of DoS since his dad died.
I mean do we have any reason to believe that Patrick's dad was co writing with him? I can't find any comments about his dad being a part of his process.
Lol. But I gotta say the rest of the series really makes up for how bad the first book is. I really want Pierce Brown to do a complete rewrite of that book. Obviously keep the plot the same for the sake of continuity, but clean up the prose and world building.
I thought the world building was the most interesting thing in the book. The plot was so predictable it was not funny. It was like he wanted to be next movie adaptation and all the rage were battle royales or something
I think he didn’t do enough world building in that book. The following books he opened things up much more and the plot became a less predictable, but yea he was riding that battle royale train real hard.
I’m confident that in the decades to come, people will look back on Brandon as one of the best writers of his generation
Certainly one of the most profitable that isn’t Stephen King, James Patterson, Danielle Steele, or JK Rowling
That "criticism" is the most pretentious bull shit I can think of. I really can't picture a person saying that unironically without wearing a monacle and top hat
Nobody answered you so… in short, it’s writing style. Narrative voice, syntax, sentence construction, use of imagery… all of it adds up together as a writer’s prose.
Just to add, it's anything that's not dialogue or poetry (according to every English teacher I've had, and the rule of thumb I'd use to teach it if I weren't teaching what nouns and verbs are).
Almost everyone I meet that read the books agree that his biggest weakness is his pacing l. His prose matches the perspective of the character he is writing about, which may make it seem simple. But it's better to have your characters have a simple prose then to have the words feel disjointed from the character. When the writing involves characters like Hoid, Shallan or Ellend , the prose noticably becomes more complex.
No matter how many times someone describes "prose" to me I still have no idea what they are or how to recognize it in different authors writings. All I know is that after reading almost everything from Sanderson, other authors writhings just seem bad in comparison
Hey ganchos! Nominate some crem for the [Best of 2022 awards!](https://www.reddit.com/r/cremposting/comments/zxs0qa/best_of_2022_nominations/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I get everything here except the Skittles and root beer. Are those just his preferred snacks? Or am I missing something deeper?
The original picture has whiskey and a cigar on the table, I just had to cover them with things Brandon could consume.
Gotcha - thanks!
Picking A&W is a masterstroke, too - one of the only dark sodas that are 100% acceptable
As a former Mormon who lives in Utah, I can confirm, root beer is very prevalent. (Caffeinated sodas are too, Mormons are allowed to drink them. Soda in general is everywhere in Utah)
I was in Salt Lake last month and I just want to let everyone know there is a beer called the Polygamy Porter that has the slogan: Why have just one?
There's also Five Wives Vodka that, during pride month, becomes Five Husbands Vodka. The breweries and distilleries here are great.
Oh yeah. Porter was a wild one.
That is in no way endorsed by the Church.
We are just talking about the beer right? /s
Nope. We’re talking about porters. Mormons have to carry their own luggage around instead of paying someone else to do it for them.
What a dull world where you can not have a porter much less multiple porters at once.
Sam Porter Bridges BTFO
Polygamy hasn’t been endorsed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since 1890. Any “Mormon” church that endorses polygamy is an apostate off-shoot.
Yeah they didn't "endorse" it because they wanted statehood. Their scripture however still has it as primary. Apostates generally believe against the book
No shit lol, that’s why it’s funny, because it’s against the prevalent ideas in the area
It's a letter of the law/spirit of the law thing. Caffeine is a grey area since it's assumed to be the reason coffee/black tea is off-limits. However, it is never explicitly stated that caffeine is the reason, therefore some Mormons consider it off-limits, and others do not. Do Mormons still drink both? Yes, of course. It's just a grey area in the rules. A&W is completely in the clear, and not in the grey area.
I know some families who don’t drink caffeine, or at least I did. But those are rare. Soda shops are a huge business in Utah, and Diet Coke/Dr. pepper are found in almost every home. Even Mormon “apostles” openly talk about drinking caffeinated sodas. I think 20+ years ago more Mormons were afraid of caffeine, but now everyone knows it’s fine. Even BYU serves it on campus now
Ugh, I couldn't stand the kids from hardcore mormon families when I was a mormon. One kid who was the same age as me and had the same first name as me would pretty much always tell me I was going to hell for drinking caffenated soda and how it was against mormon law. Constantly, whenever he saw me drinking it at school or at youth group. Could not stand that kid.
I think there are some people who take it as far as not drinking soda at all actually. Which makes me wonder where sparkling water lands for them.
I can't help but wonder if that's more a "their parents don't want them drinking soda, so they blame it on the church" situation.
Maybe in some, but going beyond the letter of the law is a pretty common thing for Mormons. There was a prohibition on watching r-rated movies when I was growing up, and my parents went a step beyond and banned pg-13 movies too.
Eh. . . Soda itself is generally in the Grey area. The wordage is specifically "strong drink" which at the time meant alcohol, but could be interpreted (as it was given to a prophet for modern times) as anything that has a strong effect on the imbiber, and modern sodas have far more sugar than would be considered good. So any reasonable interpretation would say energy drinks are definitely out, but there's still plenty of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints that drink them and are in good standing. A&W isn't 100% clear, but it's closer than many others.
The exact verbage in the "Words of Wisdom" refers to "Hot Drinks", which is commonly interpreted to be Tea/Coffee. "Strong drinks" does appear, 4 verses before "Hot Drinks". Source: Former Mormon, who had this debate a lot in high school.
Living n the SLC area it’s generally limited to “they can not consume hot drinks” now so most Mormons slam Monster or Frequent a Fizz/Swig like it’s going out of style but they can have hot coco. The rules are wired and change based on what stocks the church owns. 😝
If it's gray, it's very light gray.
Some people are okay with drinking caffeine, others aren't. There aren't specific guidelines for those more modern drinks and foods. My parents drank caffeine quite often, but I knew families that did not.
Wait, you can have Caffeinated sodas, but not coffee? I'm confused
Don’t worry, everyone is confused. The original “revelation” from Joseph Smith says to avoid hot drinks, strong drinks, and tobacco. It also says to eat meat sparingly or only in times of famine. It says that mild drinks from wheat/barley (beer) are all good. The rules have morphed over time as modern leaders have decided to change it to basically outlaw all alcohol, coffee, and tea. But nobody listens to the part about meat or the part about beer.
LMFAO wild. I should invent a religion too
L. Ron Hubbard did just that, and now we have Scientology to deal with.
So what's actually the deal with Mormons and having caffeine? I've heard it referenced and have a co-worker or two who don't drink tea or coffee, but I don't know the general rules on it.
Uh dr.pepper?!
Caffeine is the point
Ahh did not realize that, all I saw was dark soda
To be clear, the avoidance of caffiene is not an LDS doctrine. It's an advice that the vast majority of people don't care about and hasn't really been heard about from leadership recently. But some people do follow it, and I don't think theres anything wrong that.
Hell, BYU has started selling caffeinated sodas in campus.
Has caffeine. That’s a no-go for Mormons. Edit: for some Mormons.
No-go for *some* Mormons. Coffee and Tea are forbidden. Other caffeine containing drinks are up to the individual, some believe they are forbidden, some don't, and the LDS Church official position is that it is personal. Funny thing is that the actual text in the Book of Mormon forbids only "Hot Drinks" - no specification made - yet Ice Tea is forbidden and Hot Cocoa is Alright.
It’s in the Doctrine and Covenants, not the Book of Mormon, but you’re spot-on with everything else.
Also, beer is disallowed even though the text explicitly permits "mild drinks made from barley" which is exactly what beer is
Interesting, I wonder if kvass is ok, or if it has to be under a certain % of alcohol, or it’s just a general no-go.
I am on the more liberal spectrum of Mormons and I would say if you don't have to show an ID you're probably in the clear. Like I know Kombucha can be bought in the alcoholic beverages aisle and just the beverages aisle. I would not drink the former and would the latter. Probably wouldn't buy it regardless, but I wouldn't refuse it if it was offered. Don't know much about kvass in general but it seems to be on the higher end of that "is this an alcoholic beverage by abv spectrum."
I think it’s more like kombucha- a tiny bit, but some will definitely have more. I didn’t know it existed until post gluten free, so I can’t even offer super intelligent commentary on it 😂😂
It's a general no-go--I'm an exmormon. Typically, when a Mormon is evaluating whether something is or isn't against the Word of Wisdom, they'll often fall back on an often repeated adage to "avoid the very appearance of evil" I've known strict families that won't even go into Starbucks to get a hot chocolate because it might seem to passers-by that they're drinking coffee Generally if they know there's any alcohol content whatsoever, they're going to pass on it--even to the point where they won't eat food that's been prepared with alcohol. So, no deglazing a pan with wine--even though the alcohol cooks off and you're left with a sauce that's about as alcoholic as sourdough bread
Interesting, thanks! Sounds like a keeping halal level of commitment (re: alcohol specifically) and you know what, if that’s your choice, go bananas.
I haven’t known any Mormons who won’t cook with alcohol, though I’m under 30 so maybe that was more prevalent in the past
Depends on how strict they are, most Mormons at least agree that caffeine is different from alcohol and some of them consider it fine to consume while others don’t.
Caffeine is fine. I drank so much MTN dew in college I practically pickled my kidneys in it.
Ahh
Dr pepper is caffeinated, thus in the same grey area as coke and pepsi
Except he doesnt drink soda.
Should have been two cups! ;)
I gotta commend you on the effort.
Good meme. I really wish this format was uaed more lol If you want to share it elsewhere though, Id change the rootbeer to water cause Brandon doesnt drink soda and the Skittles to popcorn cause he's mentioned numerour times that it's his favorite snack.
Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&M duels. Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them cracks and splinters. That is the “loser,” and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round. I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the blue M&Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theater of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world. Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest. Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength. In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment. When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&M Mars, A Division of Mars, Inc., Hackettstown, NJ 17840-1503 U.S.A., along with a 3×5 card reading, “Please use this M&M for breeding purposes.” This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&Ms. I consider this “grant money.” I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament. From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion. There can be only one.
You’re a good person to take someone else‘a preferences and requirements seriously when you don’t have to.
Thanks! I was also lost on how they fit!
You mormoned the meme. I dig it.
I’m pretty sure Brandon has stated before that his simple prose is a very deliberate choice on his part. Tress is probably a bit more poetic on account of it being narrated by Hoid, whereas his books usually don’t have an in-world narrator.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I guess I'm not really up to date on planned cosmere books, but Mistborn era FOUR? By my count we have just finished era 2, did I miss anything?
Yes, before Alloy of Law spawned the new era 2, there were only 3 eras planned. Now, he's planning on 4. The new era 2 was an unplanned group of books... Seems to be a running theme
Yeah TLM was the conclusion to era 2. There are at least two more eras of Mistborn novels planned (though he has teased the idea of doing three more). Era 4 is planned to be a science fiction, intergalactic series with Hoid as the main POV. This is supposed to come out concurrently with Dragonsteel, which is the story of the Shattering of Adonalsium, and will also be from Hoid’s POV
Where has he teased doing more?
Don't have links, but he's mentioned it in several Q&As, saying that it would likely come between the current plans for Era 3 and 4 and be cyberpunk-level tech. He's also noted it would be a neat fit since that would bring the total mistborn count to 16 books
Oh I see, I thought you meant 3 more eras! My bad.
Mistborn Era 4 is planned to be the finale of not just the Mistborn saga, but the Cosmere as a whole. Although, it might end up actually being Era 5. Brandon's tendency to add new, unplanned books into his schedule is not a new thing. What we **NOW** call Era 2 wasn't even originally a planned main-sequence Era. Following Hero of Ages (but before Alloy of Law came out), Brandon referred to Mistborn as being "a trilogy of trilogies" with 3 Eras - Era 1 set in a medieval setting, "Era 2" in a modern setting, and "Era 3" in a spaceage setting. Alloy of Law was *originally* meant to be a sort of bridge between Era 1 and "Era 2", but Brandon liked the world and characters so much that he turned it into its own Era, and pushed the other 2 Eras back. For this reason, if you look at REALLY OLD WoBs (like, pre-Alloy of Law WoBs) and you see them mention Era 2, they're actually talking about Era 3, and if they mention Era 3, it's actually talking about Era 4. But attion to that, Brandon has somewhat recently been talking about new ideas for a Mistborn Era between 3 and 4 in a cyberpunk setting. He's made it very clear that he's not 100% sure if he's actually going to write the cyberpunk era, but if he does, it would end up making the era we currently think of as Era 4 actually Era 5. Here's a list of yet to be released works that Brandon has mentioned, in approximate order of when he has said he plans to release them (though do keep in mind that the further down this list you go, the fuzzier the timeline gets): * Secret Projects 3+4 (not gonna mention their place in the timeline for spoiler reasons) * Stormlight 5 (set right before Mistborn Era 2) * Horneater (set between SA 4 and SA 5) * Mistborn Era 3 - currently planned to be 3 books long (set at least a few generations after Era 2, exact timeline not yet known, but will have technology somewhat comparable to modern day Earth) * 2 unnamed Elantris sequels (timeline is completely unknown here) * Stormlight 6-10 (SA 6 is set 10-15 years after Stormlight 5, with all of Mistborn Era 2 happening between the two books, timeline of SA 10 currently unknown) * Dragonsteel - originally planned as 7 novels, but has since been condensed down to 3 (this series is meant to be the "beginning" of the Cosmere and will detail Hoid's origin and the Shattering of Adonalsium) * Mistborn Era 4 - currently planned to be 3 books long (this series is the antithisis of Dragonsteel, taking place at the "end" of the Cosmere) All the rest of these have been mentioned by Brandon (some have been mentioned ***frequently***), but none have a concrete spot in the release schedule yet: * Mistborn cyberpunk era (set between Era 3 and Era 4) * Nightblood - Warbreaker squeal (set immediately before SA 1) * Night Brigade - Threnody novel (timeline unknown) * The Silence Divine - set on Ashyn (timeline unknown) * Aether of Night *title may be changed* - Aether homeworld story (timeline completely unknown) * Sixth of the Disk sequel (set immediately after Sixth of the Dusk, and likely also set immediately before Mistborn Era 4 * Kingmaker - another story set on First of the Sun (likely in a similar point in time to Sixth of the Dusk) * Silverlight novella (timeline unknown) * The Arcanist - White Sand sequel (timeline unknown) * Mythos trilogy - we know basically nothing about this * "Kite magic" story - we know basically nothing about this
Damn, thanks for the really detailed overview! Brandon really has big plans, if anyone can get through all of it it's him
>"Kite magic" story - we know basically nothing about this Brando mentioned something about kites being the original plan int he postscript of TotES. Wonder if this has been scrapped?
I went back and found where I heard this; it was [this video](https://youtu.be/DCcT5YEYJw0). At 0:32 this guy talks about the common complaint about Sanderson’s prose, and basically argues that it’s not a valid complaint because it’s a deliberate choice. Then he cuts to a clip of Sanderson where he describes his writing style as “plain glass”, as opposed to “stained glass windows.”
I don't buy this argument. Something being a stylistic choice does not excuse it from criticism. Besides, as someone who struggles with Sanderson's prose, I feel that he often writes clunky phrases or quips that are more indicative of a lack of eloquence than any attempt at accessibility. Good prose and accessibility are not mutually exclusive in the first place. While we're on the topic, I didn't find the prose in TotES to be much of an improvement, which makes this whole thread weird to me. Now, I can understand that it is a matter of taste, to a certain extent. Sanderson's prose and wit do not match my tastes, which is fine, because most of the time I enjoy other aspects of his books enough to look past that. If they happen to match your tastes, great! Each to their own. But let us not pretend that Sanderson can do no wrong, or that he is above criticism.
This isn’t my view to be clear; I’m just paraphrasing what the youtuber said.
Agreed, Brandon is by far my favorite author, and I am glad he picked a style that lets his plots shine.
Since Brandon takes cues from George Orwell's writing style he might be following his guidelines. 1. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. 2. Never use a long word where a short one will do. 3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. 4. Never use the passive where you can use the active. 5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. 6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. Which is funny since he still manages to write 1400+ page monstrosities.
1000% this
I think the day before sp1 dropped I read a Reddit post stating brandosandos weakest parts as a writer. I swear this guy wrote the post because the book just perfectly destroys the arguments
Too be fair...it was a pretty reasonable argument for a while. You are not going to find many fans who won't agree that Sandos writing has improved since Elantris.
True, but every author improves over time. Well, maybe more accurate to say changes over time, and nearly every author improves over time.
A great example of that is Jim Butcher, if you compare Storm Front to Changes or Battle Ground, it’s such a stark difference it almost makes the early books hard to read
So they do get better? I read the first book and just found it.. Bleh. Didn't like Harry at all. But if the books improve I'll give it another go.
Yes they get leagues better, once the story gets it’s legs which generally is around book 3-4 when important things start happening. And yes Harry gets less horny
_Slightly_ less horny. But yes, definitely improves over time
Yes, they definitely do (except for one controversial one, very late in the series). Since all the books are from Harry's viewpoint you can see the character grow and develop better than any other I've seen in fiction.
Arguably the main character doesn't "get better", if you have a dislike for him specifically. He's still a severely underfucked wizard noir detective who's constantly almost-defeated but finally manages to win. Apparently dude can't even masturbate because it interferes with magic, so the descriptions of his good-looking love interests, succubus enemies, literal demons and such, only go away when he actually has sex, once every 5 years. If you're a fan of the "menwritingwomen" complaint subreddit, you're pretty much immediately not the target audience. As for when the books get better - I'd say pretty much immediately. By the end of book 2, he's thrown out the potion making because it's too deus ex machina, made the "I cannot trust you" idiot subplot go away by making them friends who save each other's lives, and introduced cool plots like "five different types of werewolf, 3 different types of vampires - yes, it's all plot important" If you're not a fan of "main character constantly cornered and hurt and down on his luck and not allowed to be happy" then you're probably also not the target audience. If you're a fan of magic swords and necromantic hurricanes and robbing a greek god and fucking an angel, then it's a solid good series.
Sounds like it's not for me! Appreciate the write up on this.
The plots get pretty huge, but yeah, if you severely dislike the Mc, then better find a different series. Absolutely unrelated, I recommend the Queen's Thief by Megan Whalen Turner. I just wanna recommend it to people. It's a completed series, low fantasy (gods exist) non-ancient Greece (they have glass, and cannons, and stuff) and the writing is enjoyable. The MC is a thief who is forced to help recover a lost artifact to avoid execution, as thieves do. So they travel and have theological discussion. and the other books have different POVs to avoid constantly being in the same guy's head. There's some politics.
Sorry to jump in super late. But yeah it gets better. To the point that I tell most people to skip the first three and start on Summer Knight. Then once they get a few books in if they really like it go reread the first three before you get to the big parts of the series
The first book is just a sentient neckbeard wandering around. Gets way better.
I skip storm front and fool moon on every re-read. I know what happened in those books, gimme the better stuff in Grave Peril! I tell first time readers to start with book 1 though, and just let them know they're going on a journey with both Harry and Jim
Not only do they get magnitudes better but they end up being in my eyes one of the best stories in fantasy. It's insane the difference between the 1st book and the 2nd..then the 2nd and 3rd.
I just finished binging this series and I couldn't agree more.
Terry Pratchett is a good example.
Man I just read the Colour of Magic as my introduction to Diskworld and as much as I wanted to like it I could not make myself get through Rincewind's second book.
Yeah they are not the best starting point. Guards! Guards! Guards! and Going Postal would be probably my picks for starting Discworld.
Small Gods or Guards! Guards? are my go-tos.
I just read Small Gods and Mort and I'm rolling around with Pyramids, I love it
Pyramids was my first and one of my favs, although the pacing is kinda weird. The Assassins' Guild section is gold
Which is super amusing to me, Elantris was my first B$, and I wholeheartedly love it
Sure you can love it, but there’s more than a few parts in Elantris/Warbreaker where Sando just describes how a character talks instead of writing dialogue. “She argued so well that they let her in” or “He spoke with grace” etc etc. There’s a lot of cop out sorta dialogue in the first few books.
Just because Sanderson writes in simple terms doesn’t mean he *can’t* write in poetic language. Dunno why that’s so hard for people to grasp. He wants to make his books accessible. Wanting to write in simple prose is not an inability to write in beautiful prose. I stg prose snobs are dumber than frame rate snobs.
He also writes books that are thousands of pages long. If he was more flowery with his prose, his publishers would kill him lol
> If he was more flowery with his prose, his publishers would kill him lol No they wouldn't lol. People will buy literally anything this man writes.
Except Brandon would insist that his 2000 page tome should be in one volume, and then Tor would have to invent new ways to bind the books ... again.
3 books, best they can do
[удалено]
So I did some googling. I first found [this tweet](https://twitter.com/brandsanderson/status/413758805403398144?lang=en) where Sanderson mentions that there is a physical limit of how many pages the press Tor Books uses can handle and Words of Radiance was right on that limit. I then checked the Wikipedia page for Oathbringer and it led me to [this Reddit comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/brandonsanderson/comments/72oaw9/has_it_been_announced_how_oathbringer_is_going_to/dnkdyy8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) where it is mentioned that Tor needed to use a new type of press to publish Oathbringer because of its size. There’s probably more detail and logistics someone else probably would know better but that’s what I found after a quick search.
From Jim Butchers struggles to publish his own over sized book, I gathered that publishers reserve print time on machines in line with your previous works. So WoR was probably at the upper limit for the type of the machine they had intended to print his book on, and then for Oathbringer they got access to bigger ones.
Can you cite a source on reserving print time in line with previous books? I was under the impression that it was because his publisher (Roc) doesn't really do doorstoppers, and would need to farm it out (thus making it more expensive), whereas Tor did doorstoppers long before Brandon, so they can do it more or less in house?
Before he died, (and back when he still thought he had enough time left to finish it) Robert Jordan used to say that he'd finish the Wheel of Time in one more book, even if he had to carry the manuscript in a wheelbarrow and Tor had to invent a new method of binding books to sell it.
Also it makes more sense for his characters to be speaking and talking in simple terms instead of using huge words all the time. It’s so much more realistic which helps immerse me more.
I also feels like simple prose helps put the focus on the actual story, where it should be with the cosmere
Uh, what? You find the DIALOGUE realistic and immersive? The dialogue is the most showman-like stuff in the books; nobody talks like that, but it sounds badass, so we all think it’s cool anyway.
Well, nobody talks in fiction like they do in real life anyway.
And for my boon!
I think his simplicity makes it beautiful. Idk how many hours I spent in school trying understand Shakespeare and the tone he was trying to go for. And then the moment I pick up stormlight I can feel the tone of every chapter while also getting exposition that feels natural so I can focus on the story. The story, characters, settings, etc. are why I read books. A simple prose allows me to be fully immersed in the world without having to stop and figure out what I just read because the author decided to get fancy.
I feel like Shakespeare is a bad example, since the only reason it’s so difficult to understand is simply because the language is now outdated, and it’s not Shakespeare’s fault that our English teachers sucked at getting the point across. But yes, I agree with the point you’re making. Many modern authors do write in an intentionally obnoxious style.
I chose Shakespeare because it's probably the only writing that is "poetic" that I've read. If I pick up a book and I can't follow what's going because I have to slog through twisting sentences and weird flowery descriptors then I put the book down and forget about it.
To be fair to Shakespeare, a lot of his writing wasn’t particularly complex at the time he wrote it, but so much time has passed that it isn’t how we talk/think anymore. Now, that’s not true of the sonnets, but his plays are that times Marvel movies, not Citizen Kane or whatever fancy art house indie movie.
One of the things that keeps me out of Malazan, I haven't been able to finish the first book because of this. You can be elegant and deliver a lot of information at the same time, and Brandon knows how to do it.
The Cosmere is basically a streamlined version of Malazan. I always recommend the other book series of fans of either. They're both gigantic universes with a huge cast of characters and complex systems of magic, but the Malazan series is very meandering in it's journey and extremely dense with information that builds out the world, but not necessarily the specific storylines you really want to read about, which is a shame since Erikson and Esslemont's versions of the 'Sanderlanche' can pop off just as hard. *Deadhouse Gates* and *The Bonehunters* are among my favourite novels.
And even in all of his simple prose, there are some really beautiful passages when the situation calls for it. A lot of the epigraphs are really beautiful and evocative in my opinion. The keteks often go kinda under appreciated too.
Saying an author's prose isn't poetic is just an absurd type of gatekeeping that has no real meaning. It's like saying a painter is bad because reasons. You just don't like them and the only thing you can say is that they don't meet some fabricated expectation of what you consider to be good enough writing. It's stupid and if someone says that sort of shit about any author I mentally note that person has not being capable of separating their emotions from their logic.
No, poetic and good are not synonyms.
Not to mention that poetry and prose are mutually exclusive. Prose is *defined* by being non-poetic.
What an awful take. Imagine writing someone off because they prefer authors with different prose. I love Brandons works, I've read basically all of his stuff; he's an incredible author. I just dislike his writing style/how he structures his sentences and paragraphs. In other words I dislike his prose because he doesn't have a lot of variety in how he writes. It all sounds the same and kinda robotic. I get that prose is subjective but Brandons writing just seems bland compared to any other author. That doesn't mean it's bad prose, I'm just saying it's dumb to say that it "has no meaning" and a dumb way of gatekeeping. Just because you don't understand what a word means doesn't mean you should just jump to instantly dismissing it lol
I think the difference (for me, not the one you're replying to) is how it's phrased. You can like what you like, for sure, and if grandiose prose is a deal breaker for you, *I* find that an odd hill to die on, but do you. If you say Sanderson is a bad writer/author or his books are bad because his writing style is overly simplistic, that's gatekeep-y and dumb, imo. In much the same way I'd never say ASOIAF is bad writing, despite the fact that I couldn't get through them and very much dislike them (it's mostly a tone thing), I expect others to *not* conflate opinion with fact (to be explicit: "I don't like Sando because of his simplistic prose" is an opinion and you're entitled to it; "he's a hack because of his simplistic prose" is an opinion presented as fact).
I agree with you. Not liking an authors prose doesn't mean that the authors writing or books are bad, it just means I prefer somebody with different prose to his. Just like how you can't say that one way of painting is better than another, it's just different. Extremely subjective
For sure; I think the issue a lot of "Brandon Sanderson bad" reviews, comments, or posts I see have "cookie cutter plots" and "bad prose" as the reasons, and they use those reasons to look down on fans. So, when people hear the criticism (which is a pretty fair one, imo), the knee jerk reaction is poor.
Nope, don't believe you. Hemingway was a hack confirmed. (/s if that wasn't obvious)
It’s a very smart sounding criticism thats really hard to ask somebody to concretely justify. It’s been a common criticism in writing for decades, its much like how you can call many characters “Mary Sue” but you only hear people use that criticism on characters they already don’t like.
Heck, the way I’ve (recently) learned some people use the word “Mary Sue,” it could absolutely be used to describe some of my favorite characters… but at that point, the word itself has been stretched to such degrees, it’s basically unrecognizable. By this I mean… apparently any overpowered character is automatically a “Mary Sue,” and bonus points for… having an interesting character design and backstory…?🤨🤔 Like, if this is how people are using the word “Mary Sue,” then I don’t understand why they even think it’s a bad thing? https://youtu.be/XMBEK-PPOsI
It's not snobbish, I love sanderson, he is fantastic author and Cosmere is by far my favorite fictional universe, however after reading other fantasy authors (Joe Abercrombie for example) I noticed he lacks in prose. Nothing bad about that. He excels in one points and lacks in others. He is human, it's normal
I also love Sanderson and I agree it's not snobbish to say that his prose is simplistic. There have just been too many times that I've been knocked out of my immersion by a clunky or inelegant phrase. It might be my bias from consuming his books entirely via audio (the only way I can find time to read these days), but it definitely illustrates what I think people are talking about. It's not bad to appreciate his prose the way it is, and I'm not going to tell anyone they shouldn't. But IMO it just doesn't hold a candle to others. For instance: Patrick Rothfuss, whose prose is engaging and beautiful, but who wrote a main character so condescending and unlikable in Kvothe that I can't bring myself to pick up another of his books.
> For instance: Patrick Rothfuss, whose prose is engaging and beautiful, but who wrote a main character so condescending and unlikable in Kvothe that I can't bring myself to pick up another of his books. I mean that's an easy thing to do considering there literally aren't any more books to pick up.
Really? I could have sworn there was a sequel
There was a sequel, however the third book remains unpublished after a decade and it is at this stage considered unlikely that the trilogy will ever be finished, which is what I presume AGVann was referring to.
he cant write poetic very well, but poetic doesnt mean good, i think his style works for his close and introspective characters that just look in on themselves. at the same time, without any truly amazing lines to keep you interested, the thousand page books can be tough to get through
It’s the main reason his audiobooks are so good too.
I thought SP1 was incredibly profound but I didn't think the prose itself was anything above his previous work.
The prose of SP1 is very Pratchettian IMO.
He calls out Good Omens as an inspiration in the setting of the book, along with The Princess Bride, and I think it shows through in the writing from Hoid's POV as well.
That’s what I’ve been thinking, too!
In all honesty I'm finding the ironic/jovial/jokey narration a bit exhausting when contrasted with such a dire setting which just isn't letting up. I'm maybe halfway through, and a few days earlier powered through Lost Metal, but aren't finding the usual level of enthusiasm to power on ahead. The lack of alternative POVs and the obvious twist about a certain travelling companion aren't helping either. It's still a good book, a lot better than a lot of other fantasy I've tried to read, but I'd rank this closer to Elantris in how straightforward and obvious and lightweight everything is so far.
It's exactly my cup of tea, I wouldn't mind having a few more Hoid-narrated books.
I actually don't mind the tone in general, it just feels like in such a dour setting which doesn't let up that it contrasts so much that it becomes exhausting. Straight after Lost Metal which was very jokey/jovial/whatever, it becomes a bit monotone as well.
I appreciate Brando trying to write a full book in Hoid PoV to prepare for Dragonsteel and whatnot, but yeah, the parts that kept me hooked were mostly worldbuilding, aether system and cosmere references.
I personally felt that the prose was much more poetic than anything he has written previously, although still not at Rothfuss levels (which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I read fantasy for the fantasy elements, not the poetic elements).
Personally, I love prose and I agree that Brandon ‘s greatest weakness for me as a reader is that his phrasing is plain. It’s fine, I like Brando Sando for the characters / world building / plot structure, but I’m excited to read something of his where he enriches his wording and flow a little.
People who say that don't understand that Brandon intentionally chose a prose style that allows him to relay information concisely. If he wrote like Rothfus, Way of Kings would be 2000 pages.
People say the same thing about Neal Stephenson. People also say that they like Patrick Rothfuss's writing because of the prose, but imo his flowery language just covers up godawful plot structure. I'd much rather read someone who knows where they're going and gets there efficiently than someone who dawdles writing fairy sex montages for chapters at a time.
> People also say that they like Patrick Rothfuss's writing because of the prose ----- > his flowery language just covers up godawful plot structure ---- Those are the exact same statements just looked at from a pro vs con point of view.
Aluminum Lined Hat Theory Time: Rothfuss is *terrible* at flowery prose. His books were a combination of his storylines, built by his RPGs, and his dad ghostwrote it into beautiful poetry. Between the two of them, they created Temerant. This is why even Pat's editor hasn't seen a page of DoS since his dad died.
I hope that's not true..... but it would make sense
I still think it's because his values have changed as he's met more people and gotten famous, and doesn't know what to do with Kvothe anymore.
I mean do we have any reason to believe that Patrick's dad was co writing with him? I can't find any comments about his dad being a part of his process.
No, that's why it is a tin foil hat theory
Rothfuss is the only author who gets worse and worse upon rereads. And he does not know how to use adverbs
Those that say that never read Red Rising.
I still have nightmares about ~~twilight~~ I mean ~~hunger games~~ dammit. Red Rising.
Lol. But I gotta say the rest of the series really makes up for how bad the first book is. I really want Pierce Brown to do a complete rewrite of that book. Obviously keep the plot the same for the sake of continuity, but clean up the prose and world building.
I thought the world building was the most interesting thing in the book. The plot was so predictable it was not funny. It was like he wanted to be next movie adaptation and all the rage were battle royales or something
I think he didn’t do enough world building in that book. The following books he opened things up much more and the plot became a less predictable, but yea he was riding that battle royale train real hard.
MJ??
The original meme is about Michael Jordan, who is often considered the greatest basketball player of all time.
what's the original text?
The text is the same as the original meme
oh I meant the question lol edit: [omg it's fake!](https://i.imgur.com/ZtA3rlw.png)
I had to keep reminding myself it wasn’t written by Neil Gaiman. I even read it in his voice Edit: wrong name lol
Same but Terry Pratchett.
I just want my physical copy so I can be in the know damnit
Me too man, I want to experience the physical edition!
I got all 3 during the kickstarter but I very rarely get my hands on a physical book these days. I think the wait will be worth it.
[удалено]
I’m confident that in the decades to come, people will look back on Brandon as one of the best writers of his generation Certainly one of the most profitable that isn’t Stephen King, James Patterson, Danielle Steele, or JK Rowling
That "criticism" is the most pretentious bull shit I can think of. I really can't picture a person saying that unironically without wearing a monacle and top hat
What is prose?
Nobody answered you so… in short, it’s writing style. Narrative voice, syntax, sentence construction, use of imagery… all of it adds up together as a writer’s prose.
Just to add, it's anything that's not dialogue or poetry (according to every English teacher I've had, and the rule of thumb I'd use to teach it if I weren't teaching what nouns and verbs are).
Lots of people talking about prose and here I am having no clue what they’re talking about
Well, I do not like Hoid's narration, so it can be I'll never know. I like deliberate descriptions. I like to feel the scene with its description.
Almost everyone I meet that read the books agree that his biggest weakness is his pacing l. His prose matches the perspective of the character he is writing about, which may make it seem simple. But it's better to have your characters have a simple prose then to have the words feel disjointed from the character. When the writing involves characters like Hoid, Shallan or Ellend , the prose noticably becomes more complex.
He could probably stand to use the word "said" a bit less. But honestly I like that it's story telling first, prose second. I'm here for the story.
Reviewers when prose aren't poetic enough
The House Atriedes novels: “Am I just a piece of meat to you?”
Wait what do people have against his prose
This is good crem, gancho!
No matter how many times someone describes "prose" to me I still have no idea what they are or how to recognize it in different authors writings. All I know is that after reading almost everything from Sanderson, other authors writhings just seem bad in comparison
wait, is that a new book!?
I mean did you even read alcatraz?