Well! Sorry to have dropped a bomb and walked off, but I was truly unaware of the controversy that followed my heartfelt post. I will attempt to rejoinder to the posts I found most interesting:
birthSqueeze, on 11 September 2013 - 12:04 AM, said:
I'm really looking forward to the rest of the Stormlight Archives. If The Way of Kings is testament to Sanderson's talent as a story teller and ability to move readers emotionally, then it's quite possible that it'll be some of the greatest fantasy of all time. I don't care if his prose aren't that good either; normally I would but not in his case.
This is appalling. I've read the first book of this series and it is fucking terrible, imo. The fact that you can conceive of this effort as 'some of the greatest fantasy of all time' invalidates anything else you might say. I have no further words for you.
polishgenius, on 16 September 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:
All of Sanderson's UK covers are in that style. Most of them are pretty good -
The Final Empire and
Elantris being particular highlights, imo - but this does look poor. Way of Kings wasn't stunning either.
Malaclypse, on 09 August 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:
I'd much prefer if this guy was not such a waste of good paper. I feel like he's almost there, almost like Eddings when I was a teenager but in reality, he's so far from that. Dumb people who think they're smart has to be my biggest pet peeve.
I'm not an enormous fan of Sanderson and can get on board with the Eddings comparison, but I'm very glad he exists, because his success has opened the door for many more epic fantasies that have weirder, non-Tolkien elements.
Also, you totally need to read the Acts of Caine. You'll either love them, or loathe them with the very core of your being.
Agreed - poor nephew to Gemmell, with half the imagination and none of the execution. But yeah, I'm happy for him in terms of his success - he seems like a genuinely decent human being - I just don't think he's a good writer. Regarding Acts of Caine - Matt Stover, isn't it? Can't get it on ibooks, may have to try the kindle app. I'm actually desperate to check out Stover.
Mentalist, on 17 September 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:
Malaclypse, on 28 August 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:
Morgoth, on 27 August 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:
It would be pretty hilarious if Mal was forced by his own principles to like all fantasy. Alas, amphibian's description is pretty far off the mark.
That would be funny - as it is, I'm forced to
want to like all fantasy until I find out it's shit. Look, people, I don't give a squirt of piss how many books anybody sells. It's just not something I think about.
I really hate shit like Sanderson, Abercrombie, Daniel Abraham, etc. because it's shit, imo. These are books that could have been written 20 years ago by Eddings or some TSR hack. We should have higher standards than this now. There ought to be more writers like Erikson, Bakker, Lawrence, Mieville. You know, people who are writing for an adult audience - as in, it's not just fantasy for its own sake - like if you take the fantastical elements away, what kind of fucking story is it? And how does it compare as a story of that genre? If you're going to try to convince me that Brandon Sanderson has something interesting to say about the human condition you are going to have to try very fucking hard.
Anyway, I have a bunch more Tim Powers to read so I'm happy. Gonna try Douglas Hulick whilst lounging in the Turkish sun next month so fingers crossed - first page seemed promising.
I was at work, and couldn't comment earlier, but... really?
DISCLAIMER: there will be some SPOILERS for every single author listen in Mal's post ahead. I try to make them all vague, but still, read ahead at your own peril.
Also, I've bought, read (and mostly enjoyed) each of these authors. I like them all, though for different reasons, and at no point am I trying to disrespect any author through expressing my opinion on their work, in light of what my own literary tastes are. In other words, what follows is a highly subjective opinion.
you're putting LAWRENCE in the same bracket as SE?
This the same "oh my god, the protagonist is so anti-hero and angsty that it's the next big thing in fantasy!!!" Lawrence?
Look, I bought the first two books (and will buy the third. Once it's out in mmpb). Point of Book 1 (slight spoilers): Jorg is a dick. sometimes people do absolutely, terribly, disgustingly evil things, because it's for somebody's (the question as to who really remains open) "Greater good". So that makes being a total dick okay, because reasons, and you kinda, sorta feel bad. But then you can do another totally dick thing, because reasons. Book 2 is slightly better because it's less about Jorg being a dick, and more about Jorg solving problems, so not having as much time to be a total and utter dick. Hooray for growing up. The single best thing about Broken Empire is the world-building, which is done by leaving breadcrumbs, making me want to piece the world together. But as far as being a magnum opus on human condition? forget it.
Moving on: Bakker. to quote your own words, "strip the fantastical out" from the PoN. You are left with a fairly good re-telling of the First Crusade. And on top of that a side plot about probably my most reviled literary character of all time--Kellhus. I'm still reading Aspect Emperor (which just seems to meander, promising great things, and then giving us a long track through Moria to keep us entertained and distracted), because I want to see him die a most horrible possible death imaginable, because I loathe the very idea of what Kellhus represents down to the very core of my being. And his every single triumph in the name of "necessity" and "this greater good that only he knows about" fills me with total and utter revulsion. He has the power, he has the vision, so it's okay for him to be the very definition of an asshole, because "greater good reasons". Seriously? you expect me to lap up that drivel, and say that it's on the same level as the philosophy, drive and sacrifice behind the "Unremembered speech" of Tavore in RG? I really don't see how you can compare the two.
Mieville--The man's sheer ability to create worlds in which he tells his stories means I'll grant you this one (and I've only read Bas-Lag trilo and Railsea)
now on the other side of the coin. I'll start with the one where you are most obviously and glaringly wrong-Abercrombie. I'm not the biggest fan, but here your own argument falls flat. If you "take the fantastical elements out" of the First Law (which is quite easy btw: just call a nuke a goddamn nuke, and you're 3/4 of the way there), you are left with... a real life story. There is no chivalry. There are no heroes. Rules and moral standards are something those actually in power feed to the plebs to distract them while they run everything. If you try to be genuinely good and make a difference, you are either sidelined, turned, or killed. That's life, that's how politics work in about 75% of the world to this day (the rest likes to think they are different, because their leaders are much more subtle). What more do you need to consider it "adult"?
Abraham-well, I've only read the Long Price. maybe he fucks up royally in Dagger and Coin. Long Price wasn't perfect. But it did explore things like friendship, loyalty, obligation, in ways Feist, Weis&Hickman and Eddings have never done. Take the "fantastical" out--and you are left with people dealing with things like pandemics and natural disasters. The core concept in "The Price of Spring" would stay the same, whether the disaster was caused by magic, or some kind of virus. The framing device matters less than the process.
Now Sanderson... to a degree I will agree with you. In the sense that I find his stories to be far less "serious" when compared to everyone else listed here (Disclaimer: I've only read the 4 Mistborn books, Warbreaker, and the Way of Kings. I've ever read any WoT, so can't make comparisons to Jordan). And I think even most die-hard Sanderson fans will admit that his magic systems are often the centerpiece of his stories. So yes, your criticism of "take the fantastical". is most apt here. I'm actually one of those skeptical about the idea of a 10-book epic Stormlight Archive for this very reason--Way of Kings was pretty good, but I'm not sure I'm seeing the pure scope for 10 doorstopper books in it.
But that being said, I still disagree with your "pretentious" label. If anything, Sanderson's work tends to be gimmicky--precisely because of his magic being the core of his stories. It's not a bad thing, as long as he has the skill to pull it off. And, as is currently being discussed in the thread about "classic" books, not every single book needs to be a font of wisdom to grant us enlightenment into the human condition and whatnot. Some books are there purely to entertain. And there is nothing wrong with that. of all the authors listed, I think I see Sanderson as the one who is boldest about his intent to entertain. And there's nothing wrong with it, once again. I get that may not be your cup of tea. That does not give you the right to judge it in the name of every consumer of SFF out there.
Yeah, Jorg is a dick, but he has good reason to be a dick, though Lawrence does milk it a bit hard. Jorg is at war with himself at all times - he wants to be decent but winning is more important. Jorg hates himself, that's why he doesn't balk at extreme solutions - he doesn't imagine it will stain his soul any further. Not aiming for one-upmanship here, but I know that state of mind - the ruthless lizard-brain versus the liberated forebrain and when it comes down to brass tacks the lizard knows how to get things done. I found Lawrence's books to be a revelation and I'm prepared to call that personal taste in terms of fantasy literature but to me it's actually interesting in terms of proper literature - ie., it makes me think, to consider what I would do in a given situation, to consider what the 'right' thing to do would be, to examine myself.
And all the suthors I mentioned as being 'adult' have this effect to a greater or lesser degree. While my recent foray into Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy was somewhat enjoyable, it certainly was not challenging. It's all very 'carry on as you are, it will all work out in the end - everyone has a role to play and you should be proud to clerk the graveyard shift at a convenience store or whatever - it's insipid - there is nothing that you can use in your everyday life that I haven't already learned, and since discarded, from Eddings and others of that ilk. I appreciate the fact that you are passionate about this subject and would like very much to continue this discussion in a more fluid context so...feel free to PM me if you are brave enough
In short, I understand what you're saying but I don't agree with you and yes, I put Mark Lawrence's literary efforts on a par with Steve's because of the challenge I feel when I read his work. Ultimately that's personal and I have a high opinion of myself so I arrogantly attempt to squash people who disagree with me - but really that exercise is meant to weed out the wasters - time is short - I need to eliminate people who would just amount to a waste of my limited time. Of course my stated opinion is partly outrageous - it's the beginning of an argument which I would love to have. Of all you people, only Morgoth understands this.
Regarding Bakker, I'll cede this point because I'm not that fond of his writing. I don't know what he's trying to tell me but I'm pretty sure it's perverted. Still, he's a breed apart, something special and different and therefore valuable to me in pure terms even if I don't appreciate his work personally. As far as the 'unremembered speech' thing goes, I have reservations about the philosophy behind that and Steve and I conversed about altruism before he wrote that book so yeah, pulling rank on that one. By all means, take offense.
Mieville has amazing talent, nobody could reasonably dispute this. The way he chooses to express it, more often than not, I find childish and pointless. BUT, I await the day he writes something as good as Perdido Street Station because that was eceptionally good, imo. He's still young, it's not impossible.
Regarding your little rant on the value of Abercrombie...I dunno dude, don't want to hurt your feelings but it's naive - it's ...weak. It encourages the reader to be weak, to give up hope that things might one day be better and better thinkers have expresed this opinion many hundreds of years ago. I find it intellectually bankrupt and that would be OK if it were an engrossing story, which I did not find it to be. I just don't get Abercrombie - I imagine his popularity must be due to the preponderance of career retail employees or something *shrugs*
Abraham for me was just deadly boring - I read the second one because I was strapped for ideas and I was doing a lot of reading on my phone at work and it's just...for me Eddings was better if only because there was more action. The pseudo-philosophical musings were uninteresting and the plot was turgid. I honestly don't understand what's interesting about these books. Don't get me started about the whole spider goddess cult and how basic D&D horrible that is - is there going to be a boxed set called 'Assaulting the Spider Goddess'? It's fucking terrible, imo.
Oh now you tug at my heartstrings with Sanderson - I have genuinely enjoyed reading the Mistborn trilogy (while logging every poor usage of English throughout - Brandon, no place anywhere is 'remarkably agrarian') and I pronounce it decent in execution and philosophy. But The Way of Kings, which I read first, is pure trash imo. Let's tell the same story over and over again is Brandon Sanderson's modus operandi as far as I can tell. Gemmell was that way but far more imaginative. Medieval power armour just comes off as lame to me. Anyway, more power to Mr. Sanderson, it's just not for me. Regarding my right to judge, I have no right to judge but I have the right to express my opinion and if you disagree you have the obligation to state your opinion so well done you but I'll be fucked before I'll feel bad about sharing my opinion and that ain't happening anytime soon.
Anyway, I'd love to get into more depth with you on all of this so feel free to engage me in any way you feel comfortable with.
birthSqueeze, on 17 September 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:
Bravo Mentalist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I completely agree with you about Lawrence. All it takes is the ability to write well and pretensions philosophizing to get critical acclaim nowadays. To put Lawrence in the same bracket as Erikson is unimaginably absurd. I love Brandon Sanderson but even I wouldn't put him in the same category as Erikson. On the other hand The Way of Kings was in my opinion just as good as the best Malazan books so in the future it might not be much of a stretch to speak of The Stormlight Archives in the same light as Malazan.
Ha! The Way of Kings is obviously weaksauce from my perspective. I honestly don't understand what value you can extract from it. Eddings.
polishgenius, on 17 September 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:
Mentalist, on 17 September 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:
because I loathe the very idea of what Kellhus represents down to the very core of my being. And his every single triumph in the name of "necessity" and "this greater good that only he knows about" fills me with total and utter revulsion. He has the power, he has the vision, so it's okay for him to be the very definition of an asshole, because "greater good reasons".
In fairness, I think it's a misrepresentation of Bakker to say that it's supposed to be okay for him to be an asshole. Seems to me that one of the things Bakker is doing in TSA is using Kellhus as a tool to lay out why he doesn't like religion and the use of it as a moral banner. He's
supposed to be repulsive. The real hero, the person we're supposed to relate to, is Akka, and while he has his flaws as a person, he's what most people would support as a basically good guy.
Also: while I'm aware that on this board I'm probably in a minority, I think it's a bit daft to pretend like SE is the gold standard of fantasy saying deeper things about the human condition or the world or whatever. I mean he says some interesting things and that but it's hardly the reason the series stands out from others. Certainly Abraham's exploration of the perils of friendship vs obligation, the sacrifices of dedication, the changes in people over a lifetime and other such things hit me more personally than anything SE has done so far.
Interesting, and congratulations for having and expressing an opinion. I agree that Steve is not 'the gold standard' of anything with regard to literary standards, though I found nothing worthwhile in Abraham's tentative forays into the nature of the human enterprise. Being perfectly honest, I found these books incredibly dull - don't care about any of the characters. I suppose I ought to be happy that Abraham's juvenile and accidental treatment of human nature seems to have aided you but, not to put too fine a point on it, I think you have a bit of growing up to do.
End of Disc One, on 17 September 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:
Abraham writes some of the most "human" fantasy I've ever read. I think everyone can relate to some of the characters in The Long Price Quartet. Take out the fantasy and you still have a touching story.
Ironically I don't read Malazan for stuff like that. Fantasy IS the reason I read Malazan.
Whaaaat?! You have to be fucking kidding me. The most 'human' fantasy?! The only response I can make to that is - Ed Greenwood, Douglas Niles, Richard A. Knaak - make of that what you will.
birthSqueeze, on 19 September 2013 - 03:20 AM, said:
End of Disc One, on 17 September 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:
Ironically I don't read Malazan for stuff like that. Fantasy IS the reason I read Malazan.
Completely agree with you there. The argument that you need to judge a fantasy book by what's left after taking the fantastical out is terrible. Think of all the T'lan Imass!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since everyone here seems to think I'm an idiot for liking Brandon Sanderoson so much (which is kind of baffling), I feel the need to list the main reasons why.
1. His worlds and his magic systems are very logical and consistent which you don't see in most fantasy
2. The way he uses his magic systems as plot devices is brilliant
3. very emotional writing
4. personally I enjoy the themes he explores
5. predictability isn't an issue
6. Kaladin has to be my favorite character ever!
7. all of the main points become completely and totally relevant in the end and are resolved. In other words he doesn't leave loose threads hanging off the edge.
8. Because of points 2, 5, and 7 his plotting ability must be quite adept.
9. I like the societies he creates
Please tell me what points are baffling all knowing and all seeing readers.
I think you should go to bed when your mother tells you to. Seriously.
Morgoth, on 19 September 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:
May your children frolic in endless fields of flowers and thyme!
I do agree with amphibian though. Like what you like.
Ha! True. You and I will be having words soon
Help
