/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22491498]

Is he really that bad?

[Anonymous No.22491593]

>>22491498
He's pretty mid, but his baffling popularity and his fans' insistence that worldbuilding and fucking "magic systems" are just as legitimate metrics by which to judge art as prose or theme fills many anons with such rage that they need to point out to people that this guy is kind of fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.22491611]

>>22491593
>insistence that worldbuilding and fucking "magic systems" are just as legitimate metrics by which to judge art as prose or theme

Can you make a good argument against it?

[Anonymous No.22492276]

>>22491498
I've only read Stormlight and Tress so far but I really love his work I will be getting more of his work when I'm not poor

[Anonymous No.22492324]

>>22491611
NTA but no one ever points to an author in the canon and says "the reason they're great is the symbols they used." Background lore, which would include world building and 'magic systems' (kek), might be fun and there's creativity involved but saying they're as artistically important as prose/theme is retard tier. It sounds like something someone with an "I don't read actual literature" Napoleon complex would say. If you enjoy it whatever, there's no accounting for taste, but don't expect people not to laugh at you if you come up out with the idea that "magic systems" elevate your dumbshit books to high art.

[Anonymous No.22492333]

>>22491611
>Can you make a good argument against it?
How is a magic system any different from a simulated realistic setting? Oh look, I can go to the cafe at this part.

[Anonymous No.22492385]

>>22492324
>don't expect people not to laugh at you if you come up out with the idea that "magic systems" elevate your dumbshit books to high art.
I don't think Sanderson or his fans would claim his books are "high art", but they would just reject the idea that art has to be high art to be good art.

At the end of the day, if world building and plot manages to immerse the reader into the world better and be more meaningful to them than beautiful prose could ever do, I don't see how those works or the readers are somehow lesser just because of it. They are just different ways to express emotions and ideas. To be fair I don't think Sanderson is even that good at world building, I just agree with the sentiment in general.

[Anonymous No.22492512]

>>22492385
>I don't think Sanderson or his fans would claim his books are "high art", but they would just reject the idea that art has to be high art to be good art.
That was the argument being made. If you want to admit this guy writes cheeseburger books that's fine. No one is saying only high art exists.
>At the end of the day, if world building and plot manages to immerse the reader into the world better and be more meaningful to them than beautiful prose could ever do, I don't see how those works or the readers are somehow lesser just because of it.
Because you're reading throwaway pulp about dragons and wizards or whatever. Like I already said: of you enjoy it then fine but don't hold up a middle school tier finger painting as an adult and expect everyone who isn't an idiot to pretend it's some masterpiece.

[Anonymous No.22492547]

>>22492512
>That was the argument being made.
Where was this argument being made?

>Because you're reading throwaway pulp about dragons and wizards or whatever. Like I already said: of you enjoy it then fine but don't hold up a middle school tier finger painting as an adult and expect everyone who isn't an idiot to pretend it's some masterpiece.
You're still ultimately just begging the question that the art that you enjoy is better, without really making any actual argument beyond "lol dragons, those things don't belong in REAL art". At the end of the day, the "if you enjoy it, fine" applies just the same to your art, because you also can't expect the majority of book readers to give a fuck about your prose-heavy high art classics, unless they have interesting plot, characters, and world building.

[Anonymous No.22492564]

Reddittor^

[Anonymous No.22492734]

>>22491593
>his baffling popularity
It's really not that baffling. He's a skilled writer of commercial fiction.

[Anonymous No.22492781]

>>22492547
>Where
What this anon said: >>22491593. This anon >>22491611 asked for an argument that justifies >>22491593; no one is arguing there's only one level of art so stop shifting the goalposts.
>You're still ultimately just begging the question that the art that you enjoy is better
No, I said there's no accounting for taste so if you like cheeseburger books go ahead. Just don't pretend it's on the level of a canonized classic. This was the argument >>22492324 and I think I was bang on with the Napoleon complex part given your responses.

[Anonymous No.22492798]

>>22491593
>baffling popularity
Didn't he finish off some really popular fantasy series when the original author died? That's likely where his popularity came from. I dipped into one of his threads another time and someone posted a lecture for a writing course he did where he says "copy movies and tv shows you like." He seems like an middling everyman who got lucky being a literary executor with whom mids can identify.

[Anonymous No.22492807]

>>22492798
He finished Wheel of Time after Robert Jordan died. He got picked for that job because he's a good writer. His lectures on writing are worthless, not because he's a bad writer, but he's just not spilling them beans in those things. Aspiring writers want to hear a bunch of bullshit about worldbuilding, so he gives them what they want. Same as Stephen King's book On Writing. There's some useful tidbits in there, but he's not giving away his secrets.

[Anonymous No.22492820]

>>22492781
You're getting lost again. No argument has been made in this thread that Sanderson's work is HIGH art. The whole contention is whether things like world building can contribute to something being GOOD art, just as prose can. High art just means it adheres to a set of specific cultural standards (where prose is emphasized), but whether it's "good" doesn't hinge on it being high art, since art can be much more than that.

[Anonymous No.22492821]

>>22492807
>He got picked for that job because he's a good writer.
Doubt.

[Anonymous No.22492840]

>>22492820
>No argument has been made in this thread that Sanderson's work is HIGH art.
Then why are you arguing with that idea in mind? My guess is you're just retarded and can't engage with the actual points that were made. Again, no one said there aren't levels, that there isn't high art and low art, but you insist on belaboring that asinine point as if it justifies investing hours upon hours reading the literary equivalent of cheeseburgers (which are themselves an aspect of nutrition only a retard thinks they're healthy because a talented burger builder put romaine lettuce instead of iceberg and blue cheese instead of American).

[Anonymous No.22492932]

>>22492840
>Then why are you arguing with that idea in mind?
I'm not?

>Again, no one said there aren't levels, that there isn't high art and low art
It feels like you just read the first sentence of my post and ignored the rest. Can you recite back what you think the point I'm trying to make is, so I know we're on the same page?

[Anonymous No.22493086]

no he's not

[Anonymous No.22493087]

i can't stand this guy. but i do not deny his drive.

i have never read one of his books and i never will.

one of the most intelligent people i know swears by him and loves his series. i cannot understand why.. I suspect there are several classes of intelligent people. one class just wants to turn their brain off after they come home; watch a movie, read a dumb book. i feel my friend is one of those.

my brain shuts down at work so when I come home I want to be engaged and challenged. I suppose i am the reverse. anyway.

every few months I remember this guy exists and I seethe. i dont deny this. for a night he lives rent free in my brain and i feel sick.

he just concluded some record breaking kickstarter for some obscene amount of money. i can't stand it. but he's put his worlds out there and people repsonded to it. was there a vacuum of good fantasy? i thought the market was saturated..

i don't deny that i seethe.

oh, how i seethe.

[Anonymous No.22493121]

Read this recently. The characters felt quickly rushed together to fit the plot. The dialogue did not come off as 2 cops, but rather 2 15 year olds RPing as cops in some GTA RP server.

Is this how his big series are too?

[Anonymous No.22493122]

>>22493087
If you want to feel that strongly I feel like you should at least have read 1 of his books.

[Anonymous No.22493819]

>>22492932
>I'm not?
You brought it up, retard. Stop projecting it on to me.
>It feels like you just read the first sentence of my post and ignored the rest
It feels like you're continuously filtered by the discussion at hand.

[Anonymous No.22493824]

>>22493086
Without context you can read that page as being about sex toys (anal beads and a dildo).

[Anonymous No.22493825]

>>22493086
yes he is

[Anonymous No.22493991]

>>22492821
No, you're right, they just drew a name from a hat and hoped he did a good job.
Writing popular fiction is a skill. Sure, there are a few dumbasses who luck out and hit the jackpot like E.L. James, but authors who have long-term success (King, Koontz, Nora Roberts) know what they are doing, and Brandon Sanderson is one of those authors. The thing is, most of the stuff that makes genre fiction successful tends to be invisible. With Sanderson, even his fans will say that the things they like are the world-building and the magic systems, but none of that stuff would matter if the story wasn't written well. You can compare his books, for example, with The Legend of the 10 Elemental Masters. That book probably has a lot of very detailed world building and autistic magic system rules, but it's not successful beyond a very narrow audience of internet freaks, because reading it feels like riding a bicycle up a very steep hill. That's an extreme example, of course. But the idea that long-term successful authors aren't skilled is dumb.

[Anonymous No.22494011]

>>22493991
The word you're actually looking for is "serviceable."

[Anonymous No.22494054]

>>22494011
It's not lol

[Anonymous No.22494231]

>>22491498
I wonder if he's had his second anointing yet.

[Anonymous No.22494255]

>>22494054
It is.

[Anonymous No.22494258]

>>22491498
He's a plotfag, so yes.

[Anonymous No.22495444]

What is his best series?

[Anonymous No.22495513]

>>22492385
based post

[Anonymous No.22495675]

>>22493991
It would be pretty funny if Sando ends up as the Melville of our time.