Goran’s comment > Likes and Comments
3 likes · Like
Outstanding! You hit the proverbial nail on the head!!!
"I think he is generic, unoriginal, sterile" I can get where someone could get frustrated with some of Sanderson's "forced" style of writing. I feel his characters are a little cut and dry sometimes and the situations can get a bit "campy".
But I am not sure I would use "generic" or "unoriginal" to describe his overall works.
One reason I enjoy Sanderson so much and am able to move past some of his more campy moments is because of the originality of each of his magic systems and world building in his novels.
The metallurgy in the Mistborn series, the "colors" in Warbreaker; stormlight and binding in WoK(although he hasn't expanded as much yet in WoK as he usually does). And he has really thought out these magic systems...the way they work almost reminds me of mathematics and logic. I feel like a textbook could be written on allomancy, hermalurgy, feruchemy from Mistborn. Much more original that the magic systems in most epic fantasy of some little understood mythical powers. That are accomplished by a wave of a hand or a spoken word. And his magics have severe limitations. No "dues ex magica" here.
I happen to love the "spoonfeeding" on the way things work in the world, and about the world...one man's poison, another's pleasure I guess.
Well yes, that's how it is... The things you love about his magic is what irritates me the most. He goes to such lengths to explain it to the reader, to the point where it stops being magic and turns into a science of sorts. All mystery gone, it becomes mundane and boring. And he does that not only with magic but with almost every aspect of his worlds.
Ironically, he goes against his own advice, that "a good writer should show rather than tell".
This is exactly what I love about his work: His magic has rules and is more like science than some random mumbo jumbo woodoo that could do or be anything from one page to the next. Are fantasy worlds not allowed to include science that is mistaken for magic? This is what makes our own world so wonderful and mysterious and I love Sanderson's worlds for being built in the same way.
Generic? Unoriginal? I've never read anything else like Sanderson's work. His magic systems are utterly different from anything I've ever imagined. However, what I love best about them is how well defined they are. You know what a character can and cannot do. It isn't magic so much as science. There is no Gandolf to wave his staff and make all the world's problems vanish with a flash of light.
The other reason I love Sanderson's work is because he hides worlds of information between the lines. Most of his novels actually exist within the same universe (a fact that was hidden from us until recently), but from the first book on there tons of clues that hint at the fact that this is the case.. right up to and including recurring characters (though only the most astute readers will notice such a thing).
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Darin
(new)
Jan 09, 2012 09:53AM
Outstanding! You hit the proverbial nail on the head!!!
reply
|
flag
"I think he is generic, unoriginal, sterile" I can get where someone could get frustrated with some of Sanderson's "forced" style of writing. I feel his characters are a little cut and dry sometimes and the situations can get a bit "campy". But I am not sure I would use "generic" or "unoriginal" to describe his overall works.
One reason I enjoy Sanderson so much and am able to move past some of his more campy moments is because of the originality of each of his magic systems and world building in his novels.
The metallurgy in the Mistborn series, the "colors" in Warbreaker; stormlight and binding in WoK(although he hasn't expanded as much yet in WoK as he usually does). And he has really thought out these magic systems...the way they work almost reminds me of mathematics and logic. I feel like a textbook could be written on allomancy, hermalurgy, feruchemy from Mistborn. Much more original that the magic systems in most epic fantasy of some little understood mythical powers. That are accomplished by a wave of a hand or a spoken word. And his magics have severe limitations. No "dues ex magica" here.
I happen to love the "spoonfeeding" on the way things work in the world, and about the world...one man's poison, another's pleasure I guess.
Well yes, that's how it is... The things you love about his magic is what irritates me the most. He goes to such lengths to explain it to the reader, to the point where it stops being magic and turns into a science of sorts. All mystery gone, it becomes mundane and boring. And he does that not only with magic but with almost every aspect of his worlds. Ironically, he goes against his own advice, that "a good writer should show rather than tell".
This is exactly what I love about his work: His magic has rules and is more like science than some random mumbo jumbo woodoo that could do or be anything from one page to the next. Are fantasy worlds not allowed to include science that is mistaken for magic? This is what makes our own world so wonderful and mysterious and I love Sanderson's worlds for being built in the same way.
Generic? Unoriginal? I've never read anything else like Sanderson's work. His magic systems are utterly different from anything I've ever imagined. However, what I love best about them is how well defined they are. You know what a character can and cannot do. It isn't magic so much as science. There is no Gandolf to wave his staff and make all the world's problems vanish with a flash of light.The other reason I love Sanderson's work is because he hides worlds of information between the lines. Most of his novels actually exist within the same universe (a fact that was hidden from us until recently), but from the first book on there tons of clues that hint at the fact that this is the case.. right up to and including recurring characters (though only the most astute readers will notice such a thing).
