[QuickTidal]

Macros, on 06 November 2011 - 03:31 PM, said:

Pretty sure id be be going for the jump bones option

Real life is not a porno.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 06 November 2011 - 06:03 PM

[Macros]

How dull your life must be then, ron's a real good laugh

[HoosierDaddy]

Sanderson seems like a pretty conservative guy with sex. If you add Elantris and Warbreaker to the breakdown above, nothing changes. Sex is about romantic love and monogamist relationships that are either kaiboshed before consummation or it happens after the two are wed. Although, I have read where one of the Mistborn: The Final Empire characters was thought to be homosexual, which is at least something.

Romance does not equal sex, but it implies. Which is why I like Sanderson just fine for what he writes. If I want to read kinky there's always Martin or Carey.

[QuickTidal]

Macros, on 07 November 2011 - 06:06 AM, said:

How dull your life must be then, ron's a real good laugh

Yes, my life as a human being who can keep it in his pants for three or four dates. What an achievement!

[Paran]

Best book from Sanderson to date, and most interesting characters since Kelsier! Not sur ehow he can pull a 10 book series out of this, but I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Far less YA than Mistborn (which got boring fast after the first book), plenty of likeable, confiscated characters. Again, an awesome magic system and plenty of mystery and lost history... literally can't wait for the next book. Probably the second best book of the year!

[Studlock]

So am I the only one who was bored to death by this book? It's been a while since I last picked it up but I vaugely remember being very excited by the two first scenes (the one with the uber sword-people and the assassian it white which I think was named Szeth but I digress) and then after that being less excited and slowly being turned bored. The girl Shallan was my biggest problem, and mostly because of Sandersons attempt's to make her witty which I felt didn't come off as natural and eye-roll inducing. Kaladin seems like your run-of-the-mill small town homely hero and read like one, for me at least. Most of bridge four team I was apathetic to. The King parts I can barely remember, but the guys son really annoyed me for reason that escape me. Indeed I cared more for the villians than the 'heroes' because I found them far more interesting which I guess is kind of a good thing. One of the worst things was the paint-by-cultures where if one person is from this culture they act this way, look I understand all cultures has it's conservates that play by its rules very strictly but not every single member of that culture will act like that damnit! I was so bored about half-way through I had to give up, the bridge battles where exciting at first but after awhile became the same thing. Some books use repetitiveness to it's advantage and I felt the Way of Kings did not. The no sex is shown didn't really boring so much as the 'clean' language, if I was from that world I would most likely find 'storm it' offending but as it is I wasn't pulled into the world enough. I will most likely try to read it again because that hard cover is awesome looking, the first two scenes and I truly want to like it. Despite being somewhat lacking I enjoyed Kaladin's POV enough to put up with Shallin 'witter than thou'. In the mean time I do not think I'll pick up anymore Brandon Sanderson, with this being seen as his best effort (it's my first Sanderson book).

[Morgoth]

Studlock, on 29 December 2011 - 04:02 PM, said:

So am I the only one who was bored to death by this book? It's been a while since I last picked it up but I vaugely remember being very excited by the two first scenes (the one with the uber sword-people and the assassian it white which I think was named Szeth but I digress) and then after that being less excited and slowly being turned bored. The girl Shallan was my biggest problem, and mostly because of Sandersons attempt's to make her witty which I felt didn't come off as natural and eye-roll inducing. Kaladin seems like your run-of-the-mill small town homely hero and read like one, for me at least. Most of bridge four team I was apathetic to. The King parts I can barely remember, but the guys son really annoyed me for reason that escape me. Indeed I cared more for the villians than the 'heroes' because I found them far more interesting which I guess is kind of a good thing. One of the worst things was the paint-by-cultures where if one person is from this culture they act this way, look I understand all cultures has it's conservates that play by its rules very strictly but not every single member of that culture will act like that damnit! I was so bored about half-way through I had to give up, the bridge battles where exciting at first but after awhile became the same thing. Some books use repetitiveness to it's advantage and I felt the Way of Kings did not. The no sex is shown didn't really boring so much as the 'clean' language, if I was from that world I would most likely find 'storm it' offending but as it is I wasn't pulled into the world enough. I will most likely try to read it again because that hard cover is awesome looking, the first two scenes and I truly want to like it. Despite being somewhat lacking I enjoyed Kaladin's POV enough to put up with Shallin 'witter than thou'. In the mean time I do not think I'll pick up anymore Brandon Sanderson, with this being seen as his best effort (it's my first Sanderson book).

It's often advantageous to read the thread before you ask such questions

But to answer your question all the same: No, you're not the only one.

This post has been edited by Morgoth: 07 January 2012 - 12:36 PM

[Studlock]

I did read I bit and saw everyone was raving about it, thought I was an outcast

[Morgoth]

Studlock, on 07 January 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

I did read I bit and saw everyone was raving about it, thought I was an outcast

Ah, well you'll find that there are some of us who had serious gripes with the story. Well, with most aspects of the book to be honest. We seem to be a minority, but a vocal one which makes us just as cool as the majority.

[Tapper]

Having now read the last bit of the thread: got to agree with Morghy and Amph that Sanderson is projecting his own lifestyle and expectations onto his characters with regard to their relationships and moral codes, and that he is fairly... reticent about posting about the physical part of love and lust.

I most definately did not find it an issue in the two works of his works which I rate highest (Mistborn 1 and Warbreaker), but during WoK I was at times thinking I was returning to, say, Elisabeth Moon's Paksenarion (which has more off-screen sex than WoK in a tome of the same size) or perhaps Tolkien.
Where normally I have massive respect for his world-building and mechanics, to me, WoK felt like the first entree-level epic series of the 21st century - like Tolkien (when fantasy became its own seperate niche), Brooks, Jordan, before him. A bit more serious than Eddings, perhaps. (although at the least in the Sparhawk novels, there is just a tiny bit more of an adult edge).

Nothing wrong with that ambition: it seems about the only way to reach a large audience and it is different from the incredibly gritty fantasy Martin, Erikson, Bakker, Morgan, Abercrombie and others who we place on pedestals bring. But to me, when it comes to Sanderson, to write such a series seems like a step back in his development as an author.

I must say, I liked whatshisface with his wind spirit as a character and didn't get the farmboy-turns-hero feeling with him for the full 100%, also because that stage is in his past. Instead, he sounded like the veteran of a prison camp movie, but where he'd end up eventually was utterly predictable. I hadn't expected it this book already, instead thinking he'd stick to his miserable situation for a while longer, or maybe escape and become a hunted rebel.

Now, not every book has to have Richard Morgan-like every-orifice-explored graphic sex, Abercrombie's hilariously and intentionally clumsy scenes or Martin's rape and incest galores, but 'beautiful yet chaste', 'high morality', 'bigger objectives than satisfaction', 'too much respect', 'driven by a thirst for justice/righteousness/vengeance', 'glib and goodlooking but not profiting too much from it' are all traits that are applicable to most of Sanderson's characters, certainly the protagonists.
I could deal with it with Kelsier and Vin (great character), and the Gods in Warbreaker are awesome enough as a concept to not mind. But he would have made a real difference had he introduced one of his protagonists as a complete and utter hedonist/sensualist but of otherwise good nature - a bit like Banks describes the various individuals in his Culture books, which are filled with deviates yet it all happens off-screen but at the least is implied.

To dig a tiny bit deeper into the issue and to show it can be done as well, take Lynches' Locke Lamora, who is an interesting comparison. He hasn't had sex for ages, he too is loyal to the memory of a single woman, and he too sees that as a virtue. But at the least he jokes about it, deals with it, and there is plenty of interaction with those surrounding him who think he's a nutjob on that particular front. There isn't any of that with Sanderson's characters, which there ought to be if they are a minority. When are whores hailing soldiers, where are the brothels, the groping in taverns, the men looking for a fun time, even as a side-description or a one-off?
Back to Lamora. Locke Lamora has had about as many pages as crazy-chap from WoK, but who is the more interesting, fleshed out, human character? Definately Locke. And no, I don't rate the Locke Lamora novels as anything more ambitious than well-written and decidedly fun-to-read novels: Lynch wouldn't really make my top 10 of authors.

I also think that QT's approach to judging in a vacuum is in an attempt to judge objectively without comparison, which is admirable. It is also slightly naïve (especially in a reviewer, imho - sorry about that judgment) and it is most certainly 100% fallible.
Everyone is subjective, and everyone relates to other stuff they have read or heard or whatever. The most common recommendation is after all, also on these boards: "if you like or hate this author/artist, (don't) read that writer/book/listen to that cd/ watch that movie."

This post has been edited by Tapper: 07 January 2012 - 06:59 PM

[amphibian]

Tapper, that was incredibly well thought-out and said. I agree with you vastly and enthusiastically.

I haven't gotten to the Paksennarion books yet, but the off-screen snu-snu sounds like a great way to walk the line.

[QuickTidal]

What you say Tapper is very lucid and well thought out. We are all subjective, but as a reviewer I have to approach reviews as honestly as I can. So if I feel that the lack of sex in a book doesn't deter from enjoyment of it, then I'll not call it a "con" of the book as a whole. I don't think I approach that from a naive standpoint at all. I think as a reviewer I approached it from a "the lack of lust or sex doesn't bother me at all, and in fact I didn't even notice it till others pointed it out as missing". I read certain authors and I know I'm going to get sex scenes (good or bad) or even implied off-screen sex. I just never expect it from Sanderson (whether that has to do with his Mormonism or not, I dunno), and that way I never come out disappointed that it was missing. He's never put it in his books, and the only time I've seen him write about anything remotely titillating is his work on WOT so far.

I'm also not sure how you call WOK a step backward, but that's your opinion and you're entitled.

Personally I think that WOK shows how long he worked on the book, and how much work he put into designing the series and the world.

I think some of the stuff folk have gotten stuck on (who didn't like the book) is minimal at best...but again, subjective.

I always attempt to approach review from a balance standpoint...but of course subjectivity is going to get in the way and so where i wasn't bothered at all by the story told, others apparently were, so no matter how much I gush about a book, or loathe and detest it...others are always going to have their own opinions. So if people read my reviews and find that they agree with them 80% of the time...chances are we like the same books. If you don't then you know to watch what I say is good and avoid it like the plague.

pododys nerfect.

[Paran]

Yep, with you QT - didn't notice the lack of sex scenes as they didn't take away from the overall tale, and felt the protagonists stayed true throughout the story. He didn't pull any punches with the violence, and his characters were all adult. Honestly, the way he wrote it, I didn't have a clue it would be an issue until reading it here.

[Morgoth]

From where comes this idea that we're complaining about a lack of sex scenes? From my understanding, and from my point of view, there's typically no need to add sex scenes to make a story more believable. What we're complaining about is the lack of sexual tension, something Sanderson is incapable of writing in a believable fashion.

QT mentioned that it didn't bother him, yet I find that a little odd. Sexual tension is an inherent part of romance. Without it romantic moments become implausible to say the least. Why would two people that have no seeming physical attraction to each other want to be romantically involved? Because the author says so that's why!
In tWoK there's romance all over the place but no sexual tension between the participants at all. How is that not glaring to you? Shit, even Disney movies manage to portray that part of a romance fairly well.

Some might get the concept of sexual tension confused with sex as an act, as Paran seem to, but these two concepts are separate and it's perfectly possible to have one without the other. I'll use an example from one of my favourite books; Pan by Knut Hamsun. Mind you, I'm not saying Sanderson should write as well as a man who won the Nobel Prize of Literature, but I think the example works all the same.
In Pan the main character struggles with human interaction yet has a strong effect on the few women he comes in contact with. The sexual tension is so strong you could cut it with a knife, yet it is never described directly. Nor will you ever encounter a sex scene. You simply know that there is sex going on, but it's never said. There is a romance in this book and it is believable because of the clear tension between the main character and the chosen woman. If not for that, the relationship would not have made sense.

That's the problem I have whenever Sanderson tries to write romance into his books. Why are these people romantically interested when they're not attracted to each other? It's like a caricature of Victorian England and about as believable.

[Tapper]

Morgoth, on 09 January 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:

Snip

This.

@ QT:

Quote

So if I feel that the lack of sex in a book doesn't deter from enjoyment of it, then I'll not call it a "con" of the book as a whole.

regarding this, I'd point at Morghy's bit. What I mean is that a great many of Sanderson's characters all suffer from a chronic lack of being believably attracted to someone. Even when he does write a relationship, as between Vin and her hubby, the love never really kicks off. It is more.... buddy-buddy.

My remark about naievity wasn't about that either: it was about your desire to review without considering a writer travelling paths trod by those before him as a negative. Let me give one example: Abercrombie.
One of the things why Abercrombie is praised as being refreshing is because he completely twists the cliché while playing with it at first.
If you praise that (because he does play with the context outside of his own work as a writer), then being frank about farmboy-with-sword/magic #18 being unoriginal is more or less also required. Perhaps Sanderson will get there and change them in the course of his WoK series, but based on one book in which he has had very few protagonists for a book that size, he still hasn't veered from paths trodden.

WoK contains a lot of stereotypes. It also doesn't show much about Sanderson we don't already know: great worldbuilder, amazing action scenes. Except that his worldbuilding now is one in which we also see nation-building. And this nationbuilding with all its 'diversity' is a throwback to the fantasy of the 80s when folk living next to each other had completely different habits based on nationality (see Cairhien being Louis XIV French and Andor being much more british in concept) without cross-overs or cross-influence when in reality fashion, morality, concepts, ideas and science do travel.
I feel quite disappointed by that because so far, Sanderson has shown himself to be capable of incredibly versatile societies and concepts.

[Tattersail_]

Not read this yet. So I cannot comment on this book in general but I agree with Tapper and Morgoth on the points they made.

[QuickTidal]

@Morgoth.

Sexual tension is not always hit you over the head blatant though. I'm not sure why you are averse to subtlety.

I'll give you an example. THOR. In THOR Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman's relationship amounts to a few longing scattered looks across the room and one kiss. That's it. But when they stared in each others eye's you could SEE it, you could see the sexual tension...but it wasn't overt, and while subtle it was still very believable.

So, a major complaint about sexual tension was to do with Dalinar and Navani was that it wasn't really present and then ends up being manifested in a simply kiss. A notion I wholeheartedly disagree with. The whole point in talking at all about Navani's previous marriage to Dalinar's brother and that she loved Dalinar the whole time was her side of the building...his honour and refusal to sully that previous bond by accepting that he loved her as well was his side...They shared MANY a longing look during the narrative near the end...and the kiss was the result.

Just because it's not beating you in the face and the prose isn't saturated with the sexual tension doesn't mean it is absent. It simply means it's subtle.

Look. I'll give you a real life example. I once went up to visit a friend in another city where he attended University. There was this girl he went to school with and we immediately took a liking to one another....but my buddy had been crushing on her for months....and both she and I were aware of this....so all we COULD do (for me I felt honour bound to my buddy) was share these looks across the room when we got the chance. Hell, I never even kissed her...but after 3 days there with those looks at one another...knowing we couldn't do anything, but wanting to...that's one of the most vivid and visceral romance moments in my whole life. Yet nothing ever happened. <------so this...is how you have a romantic aspect to things without there being blatant visible sexual tension on display.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 09 January 2012 - 02:32 PM

[Morgoth]

Lack of subtlety? How can you read all that and come away with "lack of subtlety"? Are you even reading our posts anymore?

The problem with Sanderson is not his subtlety. Hamsun knows subtlety. You and that girl knew subtlety. Sanderson does not have anything at all.

This seems to me to be nothing more than a need you have of creating a straw man to argue against as it's easier than to actually respond to Tapper and I.

[Tsundoku]

I tend to agree with QT: I think it's definitely there (in that example), while I'm not averse to ze pr0nz, I like that Branderson doesn't hit you over the head with it. I'm actually of the opinion that romance in books isn't NECESSARY, but when it's subtle and well done I like how it doesn't jar me out of the story.
I'm actually that guy who gets to the boring mushy bits and skips them, because for me they usually add nothing at all to the story, and are just there to attract/keep the female readers, or to tick the "romance" box on the "plot elements" checklist. It's even more obvious in film when it's tacked on and consumes far too much screen time, but the same principle holds. Yep, I'm that guy who snarls "Oh for crying out fucking loud, GET ON WITH IT!" when they're confessing their feelings, fart-arsing about when there are FAR MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO BE DONE (like escaping from the savage tribesmen, or disabling the bomb etc you get the picture). Frankly, IMHO 90% of romance in novels and film is a waste of time because it's so hamfisted. It's like a speed bump.

Actually, one of the reasons I like Branderson's style is because the prose is so crisp and clean and he doesn't waste time with unnecessary romantic twaddle.

But hey, different strokes for different folks, each to their own and all that.

This post has been edited by Sombra: 09 January 2012 - 03:28 PM

[Tapper]

QuickTidal, on 09 January 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

@Morgoth.

Sexual tension is not always hit you over the head blatant though. I'm not sure why you are averse to subtlety.

I'll give you an example. THOR. In THOR Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman's relationship amounts to a few longing scattered looks across the room and one kiss. That's it. But when they stared in each others eye's you could SEE it, you could see the sexual tension...but it wasn't overt, and while subtle it was still very believable.

So, a major complaint about sexual tension was to do with Dalinar and Navani was that it wasn't really present and then ends up being manifested in a simply kiss. A notion I wholeheartedly disagree with. The whole point in talking at all about Navani's previous marriage to Dalinar's brother and that she loved Dalinar the whole time was her side of the building...his honour and refusal to sully that previous bond by accepting that he loved her as well was his side...They shared MANY a longing look during the narrative near the end...and the kiss was the result.

Just because it's not beating you in the face and the prose isn't saturated with the sexual tension doesn't mean it is absent. It simply means it's subtle.

I'm not sure that you get what we're getting at. I think both Morghy and I are fine with no sex or flushed cheeks or feelings in the pit of the stomach on the pages, both Morghy and I said so. That isn't our complaint. I referred to other ways to deal with it, cross-referenced to other books and similar situations, each more interesting to me in the way they deal with it. At no point in the narrative did I want to club Dalinar on the head and tell him to go for the woman. At no point did I hope for their romance to come full bloom. At no point did it even remotely interest me. And the reason there is because the narrative is on the whole lacking the concept of credible, emotionally involved, passionate romance.

My own complaint is that in Sanderson's work as a standard there is no tension between characters that make romance believable. Instead, his people are committed to ideals (Kelsier), family (whatsherface who went to steal the jewel, the sister of the runaway bride in Warbreaker - notice also that she marries the God-King without any passion between them other than comradeship and being stuck in the same situation together), identity (the wind-sprite in WoK, best character in the book), guilt (Kaladin), honor (the assassin).

I mean, Tolkien is hardly a romantic, but his one scene where Eowyn asks Aragorn to return (to her) had tons more emotion and passion between man and woman than the whole of WoK has, even in his clunky prose.

When it comes to Dalinar, I honestly think that upon analysis of his character and the time period over which he has repressed his feelings (decades), when he looks at Navani it ought to be with misgiving for she confronts him with what he sees as a flaw in his character and ability to stick to the Code, and he seeks to repress that. That this changes, nice, good element of any story, except that it isn't really told. Look at Gaiman's American Gods. Shadow's love for his wife is very, very obvious - despite the fact that she dies giving a blowjob to his best friend and that this is the first bit we read of her, and that throughout the book, Shadow is nearly as devoid of emotion as Dalinar tries to be. Gaiman gives her, what? three spread-out pages of introduction and you start of with a negative, too - the circumstances of her death (of course, she surfaces later on).

I'm fine with you defending Sanderson and WoK but if you think we need a thicker slice of tension to notice it, then you and I differ. I really don't need everything spoken out, omission sometimes tells more: silence is a tool that the lets the reader/ viewer fill things in. But on that subject, too, Sanderson's prose is devoid of such silence. This isn't restricted to WoK. This is a multi-book trend.

He's simply NOT (THAT) GOOD at writing romance. Few writers are, for love (desire is something else) is a very complex emotion, but I do think we are entitled to point that out. Martin for example, lacks a certain bit of quality in this respect too, or Sansa would have been a more likeable character (like she is in the series, where you can forgive her for her blind teenage crushes).