[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 37 KB, 300x345, mistborn-300x345.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2468045 No.2468045 [Reply] [Original]

Will someone who is generally wary of fantasy novels and any story that uses magic as a plot device enjoy the Mistborn series? All of my friends have read it and loved it, and I generally
consider them to be intelligent people.

>> No.2468059
File: 30 KB, 300x323, 1253461599690.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2468059

>Enjoying fiction
>Having anything to do with intelligence

>> No.2468070

Magic is tied down to objects in the Mistborn series. That pretty much sums it up.

>> No.2468072

If you don't like magic then you sure as fuck won't like Mistborn. The entire series is about magic. I imagine it would grate on your nerves.

>> No.2468082

>>2468045
It doesn't have a great deal of depth. The world-building is extra, extra bad. Sanderson has no gift for putting the reader into the scene, or even differentiating very well between his characters. He is not a writer with any dimensionality at all.

But Mistborn is a lot of fun in the same way that an old James Bond movie can be called fun, or maybe a Fast and Furious movie.

It's essentially a heist movie in a fantasy setting. Imagine a really good dungeons and dragons campaign, with a lot of laughter amongst the players, and the dungeon master keeps trying to throw grimdark twists at you.

That's Mistborn.

Light, entertaining, dephtless, fun. Actual quality debatable. But fun.

>> No.2468088

>>2468082

When you call it fun you undermine your own criticisms of its quality.

>> No.2468093

>>2468088

I agree, he says, "It doesn't have a great deal of depth. The world-building is extra, extra bad. Sanderson has no gift for putting the reader into the scene, or even differentiating very well between his characters. He is not a writer with any dimensionality at all," which is pretty damning criticism, but then he calls it "a lot of fun." I don't understand.

>> No.2468100

>>2468093

Just interpret it as him being generous about literature that he otherwise on principle really hates. Either that or he hates Sanderson because of his work on the Wheel of Time.

The only explanations I can see.

>> No.2468111

>>2468100

Still, the Mistborn series aren't awfully interesting anyway. I wouldn't tell you not to read it, but I'd rather read something like the Gentlemen Bastard Sequence. I found that, at any rate, to be more enjoyable.

>> No.2468212

>>2468111
>>2468100
>>2468093

Sensual assessment is very different from critical assessment.

Sensual assessment regards what is.

Critical assessment regards what could be.

>> No.2468228

>>2468212

But of what relevance is critical assessment then, if the sensual assessment is that it is 'a lot of fun'? It still appears very much undermined in my eyes. What's more is tnat the critical assessment seems largely irrelevant with respect to the topic of this thread.

>> No.2468459

>>2468228
I'm the guy who wrote the original comments about it being fun that a few of you had hissy fits about. There is utterly no contradiction in pointing out specific things that a writer does not do well, while at the same time pointing out things that the writer *does* do well. If you think there is such a contradiction, you're a fucking moron.

I don't think Mistborn is particularly good, in an objective sense. I tried to explain why not, while at the same time acknowledging that there are good things about it.

Very few works are above criticism. Mistborn is certainly not above criticism. In the end, there are things which are bad about it, and things which are good about it. If you seriously have this much trouble wrapping your pea brains around such a basic concept, _reading_ probably isn't for you.

>> No.2468490

>>2468459

You seem mad.

I'll politely inform you that my initial comment on your analysis was not a failure of understanding of my part, but rather a product of your oxymoronic and arguably poor way of expressing this very simple concept. I can only assume that you for some reason felt that your message would hold more weight if it were to be loaded with pretense, because otherwise you could have quite simply expressed it in the simple terms you did just now.

I wonder what the underlying reason for this pretense might be in your case (?).

>> No.2468505

>>2468059
Scum of the earth. I can't even begin to express how dull and pathetic you are. You aren't edgy or cool. You're not a grown up, believe it or not, because you don't read fiction.

Sickening.

>> No.2468954

the first books great, don't read the next two. She becomes a horribly evil person who kills innocent animals.

>> No.2469231
File: 248 KB, 1004x1600, 1330026409133.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2469231

OP mistborn is pretty cool but the magic systems themselves are made purely for the combat, the author himself said so

you have great combat and great characters and story though

his best work ever is Way of Kings, read that
> generally wary of fantasy novels and any story that uses magic as a plot device
well you don't read much do you, you probably think Sanderson is like Goodkind, you probably think all fantasy is "the wizard got angry and the walls started cracking" or "she focused and ignored the vines crushing her and killed the wizard with a true shot"
that's goodkind's filth, Sanderson writes about the characters, but first of all he creates an original world where magic doesn't affect the plot, but it does affect the world itself (social status, environment, weather, races, geography)

start reading, alternatively if you want a more grounded fantasy book series read either ASOIAF or my personal favorite, Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy