/lit/ - Literature

>>9247732
It's meh... and why would you waste time on meh?

Sanderson's worldbuilding is way overrated, I'll say that much. Good prose, though.

>>9247780
He's also a prude, which makes the story unrealistic and annoying.

My advice: Don't.

>>9247732
no

>>9247801

Prude how? Not questioning you, genuinely curious as someone who hasn't read the books.

>>9247732
read them if you're a pleb. (most people are.)

>>9247892
He's a Mormon.

>>9247908

Okay, but how does it affect his writing?

>>9247916
It makes him write like a Mormon.

Why is he mediocre/bad/whatever exactly? Can someone give an actual argument?

>>9247788
>good prose

Are these the only books you've ever read in your life?

>>9248330

For mainstream fantasy, of course, don't make yourself stupider than you are.

>>9247788
Odd, I think most people say the opposite.

No, Sanderson isn't quite what I'd call terrible, but he is essentially the benchmark for mediocre fantasy lit

>>9247732
>Are these books any good?
The first one (The Final Empire) was enjoyable, you don't really need to read the whole series IMO.
I would recommend you check out Warbreaker and The Emperor's Soul if you're new to Sanderson.

>>9248229
There's no real argument because he's famous so even if his work was good/interesting being someone who likes books requires you to call anything that sells shit.
I think the problem with genre fiction in general is that if it's not 'your thing', like you really like the whole dragons and it's a book about dragons, there's basically no point in reading it.

Pretty much porn/fetishes in entertainment form. So if you get hard off sciency magic then it's this series. About every troupe you've ever hated and every generic character development is in the book anyways, so it's not like it's anything unexpected.

>>9247732

/lit/ only likes books you can brag to your friends about. You'd be better off checking Goodreads.

Mistborn is an enjoyable series if you like fantasy.