Brandon Sanderson

[danzibr]

What are your thoughts of his work? I saw his name mentioned in another thread (well, it's happened a good few times, but that one most recently) and I'm considering reading his stuff. I did happen to read the entire Wheel of Time series and so my current opinion of him is not very high, but if people can vouch for his other works I might give them a go.

[Lethologica]

Based on having read the Mistborn series (+ AoL + 20 pages of WoK): Likes his epic-scale conflicts, a little too much emphasis on the abstract features of the setting/magic system for my taste, but does have interesting settings/magic systems. Engaging on an action level, somewhat less so on a character/writing level. Mixed feelings on the endings, which are often clever but always self-consciously clever.

[Flickerdart]

I read the Mistborn books and found them rather flat and boring. Then I read The Way of Kings, a 1000 page book where nothing happens. Now I don't read Brandon Sanderson anymore.

[Seerow]

I got introduced to him via Wheel of Time as well, but had a different opinion. While Wheel of Time wasn't his best work, and he obviously struggled to capture the voice of several key characters, I feel like his work with Wheel of Time was all we could have hoped for after Robert Jordan died, and was very satisfied with it.


That said, his own work is generally better and more tightly written than anything in WoT. Which isn't to say he is a master of prose (I like his writing, but it is not something I will read just for the quality of wordsmithing like I would for say Patrick Rothfuss), but rather than he keeps his stories and plotlines relatively focused, and avoids the traps so many fantasy writers fall into of getting lost in his own worlds.

Also probably the coolest thing about his fantasy series is most of them existing within the same universe, spread across a half dozen different worlds. Thus far there is only minimal interaction between them, but there is occasional crossover happening in the background, and the stories are littered for easter eggs for readers with an interest in that sort of thing. And he does seem to be building towards an endgame where all of these worlds do crossover to a much greater degree, which is cool.


As for where to start? It depends on what you're looking for.

Mistborn is generally a very strong starting point. It's a trilogy of novels, and if you enjoy it there's another series of novels set in a different time period of the same world. If I had to guess reading Mistborn was what got RJ's wife to say "This is the guy who should finish Wheel of Time" just based on some of the themes of the Trilogy.

For a lighter entry, I'd recommend The Emperor's Soul or The Reckoners, depending on your taste.

The Emperor's Soul is a novella, so relatively low investment, and showcases the best parts of Brandon's writing, while mostly avoiding the big setpiece action scenes that he generally leans on for his larger books.

The Reckoners is a YA trilogy, taking place in the near future real world instead of his cosmere, and is a setting where supers have started showing up, but every one of them is a villain. Despite it being YA I immensely enjoy the series and am looking forward to the 3rd and final book coming out next year.


If you want to jump off the deep end and get neck deep into a new Wheel of Time style epic fantasy though, you want the Stormlight Archives. It's currently only got 2 books currently out of a planned 10 (which will be broken into 2 5 book cycles), but you the books are very obviously set up to be more sprawling with a wider cast of characters and a very large world to explore. It's still fairly well focused, but you get lots of different PoVs in various places, including interludes from characters you only see for a chapter or two to give an insight into what's going on in other parts of the world. It's my favorite series of Brandon's, but if you're still wanting to test the waters and see if you want to give him a shot, this probably isn't the place to start.

[The New Bruceski]

Also probably the coolest thing about his fantasy series is most of them existing within the same universe, spread across a half dozen different worlds. Thus far there is only minimal interaction between them, but there is occasional crossover happening in the background, and the stories are littered for easter eggs for readers with an interest in that sort of thing. And he does seem to be building towards an endgame where all of these worlds do crossover to a much greater degree, which is cool.

To be clear, this is in the form of "easter eggs for attentive readers" rather than necessary to following along. You don't need to read everything he's written to enjoy Random Book X. The Stormlight Archives is the first time it's become explicit, and still not in a "need to have read the other books" way.

His main thing is playing with different ideas of magic systems, and trying to shape the world/people around those systems. If a magic system is based around gaining use/perception of sound/color, the society is going to be very colorful and characters with the power are going to note the colors of objects more than the material they're made out of. A foreigner is going to note a bunch of details and odd creatures that a native didn't give a second glance to a few chapters ago. He doesn't get really out there with his consequences of such systems (it's still generally generic mideval-ish fantasy with some exceptions) but at least he makes the attempt and I enjoy that sort of thing.

I would skip Elantris as a first-read. I enjoy the book but it was the first one he wrote and it definitely shows, so read some of his other stuff before trying it. Then there's Mistborn (ragtag heroes fighting an all-powerful Lord Ruler, with some twists), Warbreaker (political marriage leads to intrigue), The Stormlight Archive (large world-spanning epic fantasy), and the Wax/Wayne books (Mistborn world three hundred years later, Old West/Age of Steam). And there are some other one-ofs, a young adult dark satire series (Alcatraz and the Evil Librarians), and a smattering of other books.

[Douglas]

I read the Mistborn books and found them rather flat and boring. Then I read The Way of Kings, a 1000 page book where nothing happens. Now I don't read Brandon Sanderson anymore.

In my opinion you have a very strange definition of "nothing". Sure, a rather large portion of it is character development rather than events for the history textbooks, but there is a lot that happens in the book.

What are your thoughts of his work? I saw his name mentioned in another thread (well, it's happened a good few times, but that one most recently) and I'm considering reading his stuff. I did happen to read the entire Wheel of Time series and so my current opinion of him is not very high, but if people can vouch for his other works I might give them a go.

What, exactly, about his work in the Wheel of Time is so unimpressive to you? Personally he's my favorite author and I like (to varying degrees) everything he's published, but I like his WoT books a lot too, so our tastes in literature clearly have some differences.

I would suggest trying Mistborn to see if you like it without committing to too much.

As for why I like him:

• His worlds tend to be very strange in one way or another, often but not always having to do with the world's magic, yet fundamentally make sense in a way that is detailed, cohesive, and draws me in while simultaneously presenting some mystery.
• His characters cover quite a variety, and develop and bounce off each other in interesting ways while consistently staying true to themselves.
• His endings tend to be both surprising and well supported at the same time.
• I like epic scope, and he does that a lot.

Also probably the coolest thing about his fantasy series is most of them existing within the same universe, spread across a half dozen different worlds.

That's cool for people who already read a lot of his books, but I don't think it's much of a selling point for someone just looking to check him out.

If I had to guess reading Mistborn was what got RJ's wife to say "This is the guy who should finish Wheel of Time" just based on some of the themes of the Trilogy.

You can stop guessing, that's exactly right. She has stated publicly, many times, that Mistborn is what convinced her to pick him. An essay from his blog about what Robert Jordan meant to him and how he felt about RJ's death is what brought him to her attention, Mistborn is what convinced her that he was the right author to finish the series.

[Selrahc]

Mistborn Book 1 was alright, full of interesting ideas and with a decent plot, but deeply flawed in writing, particularly characterization. Just felt a bit flat and cliched. The second and third books were pretty weak all round, not really developing the world in an interesting way.

Way of Kings 1 was much better written, but had a fairly static plot. Book 2 builds up a lot more momentum, but I felt like a lot of the characters ended up looping back into the same personal issues they'd already dealt with in book 1. It's kept my interest enough that I'll read the third one, but I'm hoping it improves.

I thought Emperor's Soul was really good though. It's short too, and completely stand alone. If you want to see if you'll like Sanderson, start here.

The other one of his books I've read is Rithmatist. I liked that one too, but it was definitely a more light, throwaway story.

[danzibr]

What, exactly, about his work in the Wheel of Time is so unimpressive to you? Personally he's my favorite author and I like (to varying degrees) everything he's published, but I like his WoT books a lot too, so our tastes in literature clearly have some differences.

Rand said, "[...]"
Min said, "[...]"
Rand said, "[...]"
Min said, "[...]"

It may not have been Rand and Min, but damn did he overuse that format for dialogue. Boring.

Also, I forget the names, that chick saying to Androl (or not?) about the other guy preferring men. I don't mind homosexuality in books, but what's that phrase? Show, don't tell? I didn't like that he made such a big deal out of it. It was like... "Looky here, I put in a gay character."

Also, Androl.

Also, the chapter on boots.

[Douglas]

The second and third books were pretty weak all round, not really developing the world in an interesting way.

Considering what happened in those books... I disagree. Strongly.

Rand said, "[...]"
Min said, "[...]"
Rand said, "[...]"
Min said, "[...]"

It may not have been Rand and Min, but damn did he overuse that format for dialogue. Boring.

Huh. To me, "X said" or any equivalent is just something I skip over without even noticing on the way to the actually meaningful part (the dialogue itself). Keeping it minimal, just identifying who's saying each line, seems perfect and standard.

Also, I forget the names, that chick saying to Androl (or not?) about the other guy preferring men. I don't mind homosexuality in books, but what's that phrase? Show, don't tell? I didn't like that he made such a big deal out of it. It was like... "Looky here, I put in a gay character."

That made so little impression on me that I don't even remember it. It seems to me that things like that are subjectively a big deal only for people who are especially sensitive to the issue in advance. Regardless, I don't recall any big deal made of homosexuality in any of his other books.

Also, Androl.

On that score, it depends a great deal on why you dislike Androl. Androl was, essentially, Brandon's original character created in part to give him a vehicle for playing around with a part of the magic system that he found interesting. The other reason for Androl's existence was to be a viewpoint in the Black Tower. If you don't like how Androl fits in with the rest of the series and setting, that's irrelevant to whether you'll like Brandon's other books where he made the setting along with the characters. If you don't like Androl's characterization, that's an uncertain sign, Brandon has a lot of different characters. If you don't like how Androl did various clever tricks with gateways, that's a sign you might dislike Brandon's writing overall, because "clever tricks with magic" is a staple of his books.

Also, the chapter on boots.

No idea on this one.

[industrious]

I view Sanderson almost like a "mechanical author" - a friend of mine things that that characterization is unfair, but it fits. He cranks out books roughly twice a year, and they tend to focus around a system of internally consistent magic and how that magic is used. He is very, very good at creating these magic systems. Sanderson's weak point has been his characterization - the characters are almost always flat to some extent or other in his earlier works. Stormlight Archive is, despite being the Big Epic Fantasy he's writing, is actually much better at addressing this weakness.

Two other themes he brings to the fore are a) religion - he does a great deal about gods, religion, and the nature of the fantastical divine, more than most authors I've read - and b) money - this one is more subtle, but money nearly always figures into his magic system in some form or the other.

I like reading his books - he's a decent and creative author.

[Anteros]

Basically he's good at world building and creating interesting magic systems, but pretty bad at everything else. As a result, his one offs are pretty good but longer more character driven stories are pretty awful.

Mistborn is terrible outside of the first book. His work on WoT is atrocious (to be fair, he wasn't a good choice for the type of writing required for this series).

Elantris and Warbreaker were both decent though because he mostly focused on the world and magic and they ended before he really got into the characters. I haven't read any of his other stuff, but I would not be optimistic about any series that lasts longer than 1 book in the same setting.

Considering what happened in those books... I disagree. Strongly.


Huh. To me, "X said" or any equivalent is just something I skip over without even noticing on the way to the actually meaningful part (the dialogue itself). Keeping it minimal, just identifying who's saying each line, seems perfect and standard.


That made so little impression on me that I don't even remember it. It seems to me that things like that are subjectively a big deal only for people who are especially sensitive to the issue in advance. Regardless, I don't recall any big deal made of homosexuality in any of his other books.


On that score, it depends a great deal on why you dislike Androl. Androl was, essentially, Brandon's original character created in part to give him a vehicle for playing around with a part of the magic system that he found interesting. The other reason for Androl's existence was to be a viewpoint in the Black Tower. If you don't like how Androl fits in with the rest of the series and setting, that's irrelevant to whether you'll like Brandon's other books where he made the setting along with the characters. If you don't like Androl's characterization, that's an uncertain sign, Brandon has a lot of different characters. If you don't like how Androl did various clever tricks with gateways, that's a sign you might dislike Brandon's writing overall, because "clever tricks with magic" is a staple of his books.


No idea on this one.

Unfortunately, the fact that you skip over bad writing doesn't mean the writing isn't still terrible for the rest of us. Also, the gay character thing...yeah, he announced how progressive he was being on Twitter before putting the character in. It was entirely "look how progressive I'm being" rather than an honest effort to include such a character as normal.

On Androl...there are really far too many problems to list. Suffice to say that a lot of people feel like the climax of a 25 year long series should actually involve the main characters from the last 25 years rather than a last minute Mary-Sue author insert. As crazy as that seems.

[Selrahc]

Considering what happened in those books... I disagree. Strongly.
.

Well, feel free to elaborate.

Spoiler

Show

The first novel had an interesting antagonist(who could have stood to be better developed). The second and third novel had a nebulous antagonist. It moved from fighting an oppressive functional regime, led by an evil man who thinks he is doing good, to fighting against a universal force of uncomplicated evil. Blah blah blah.

And Elend becoming king was nonsensical. The vast Empire described in the first book didn't get any prominence. The collapse of a kingdom that has been around for thousands of years is just not given weight. The second book is in the middle of that collapse, and it comes across as nothing more than a squabble between Elend and his dad.

The third book was better than the second, and it actually all built up to a good climax. Sazed is a good character. But I didn't like the harmony-ruin plotline at all, and that's what it was built around. Evil mind controlling spikes aren't a good plot device.

[Tvtyrant]

I really like Sanderson. I think his biggest issue is that he is clearly a visual person, so he describes combat in excruciating detail. Seriously the exact placement of Vin's coins at any given time are not why I am reading the book!

I think Sanderson would be much, much better with a coauthor and with each fight scene sliced down to a page.

[JeenLeen]

He's one of my favorite authors. The thing I like most about his writing is that his books have an internally-consistent metaphysics. They are not always explicitly stated, but there are hard rules about what works and what doesn't. (Even if characters might think there's no rules behind it, by the end of the book you probably have a decent idea of the rules.) Often a major plot-twist is based on characters finding out something they thought about their world's metaphysics is true is actually false or figuring out a new use for a power. I can understand some people not being interested in such, but as someone who finds magic systems and fantasy metaphysics immensely interesting, I greatly enjoy his work. His world-building is also very well done (often tied into the metaphysics.) Something I'm looking forward to in his Stormlight books is learning more of the over-arching metaphysics of his cosmology.

One of his big strong points is that characters explain or show the world naturally. Even if a world is rather different than earth, he doesn't just state the difference but rather shows it through the thoughts and actions of in-world characters.

I guess I can see arguments that his writing style isn't the best, but I think it's at least decent. And I think most of his characters are pretty 3-dimensional, so his characterization is up to par.

I really like Sanderson. I think his biggest issue is that he is clearly a visual person, so he describes combat in excruciating detail. Seriously the exact placement of Vin's coins at any given time are not why I am reading the book!

I think Sanderson would be much, much better with a coauthor and with each fight scene sliced down to a page.

I can agree with this. I often (with any author) get a little bored with combat scenes and end up skimming them. With Sanderson's books, I've often missed a crucial detail to understanding the metaphysics because I misread or didn't read a detail about power use in a fight. (And one book I think I just misread who did something, leading to a lot of confusion.) But that's more a personal issue/taste than an issue with Sanderson. I would prefer the fight scenes to be shorter, but I feel that way about almost any book that has combat scenes.

[danzibr]

Huh. To me, "X said" or any equivalent is just something I skip over without even noticing on the way to the actually meaningful part (the dialogue itself). Keeping it minimal, just identifying who's saying each line, seems perfect and standard.

That made so little impression on me that I don't even remember it. It seems to me that things like that are subjectively a big deal only for people who are especially sensitive to the issue in advance. Regardless, I don't recall any big deal made of homosexuality in any of his other books.

On that score, it depends a great deal on why you dislike Androl. Androl was, essentially, Brandon's original character created in part to give him a vehicle for playing around with a part of the magic system that he found interesting. The other reason for Androl's existence was to be a viewpoint in the Black Tower. If you don't like how Androl fits in with the rest of the series and setting, that's irrelevant to whether you'll like Brandon's other books where he made the setting along with the characters. If you don't like Androl's characterization, that's an uncertain sign, Brandon has a lot of different characters. If you don't like how Androl did various clever tricks with gateways, that's a sign you might dislike Brandon's writing overall, because "clever tricks with magic" is a staple of his books.

No idea on this one.

Interesting. You seem to have forgotten many things which I disliked.

Unfortunately, the fact that you skip over bad writing doesn't mean the writing isn't still terrible for the rest of us. Also, the gay character thing...yeah, he announced how progressive he was being on Twitter before putting the character in. It was entirely "look how progressive I'm being" rather than an honest effort to include such a character as normal.

On Androl...there are really far too many problems to list. Suffice to say that a lot of people feel like the climax of a 25 year long series should actually involve the main characters from the last 25 years rather than a last minute Mary-Sue author insert. As crazy as that seems.

Yup.

[Douglas]

Unfortunately, the fact that you skip over bad writing doesn't mean the writing isn't still terrible for the rest of us. Also, the gay character thing...yeah, he announced how progressive he was being on Twitter before putting the character in. It was entirely "look how progressive I'm being" rather than an honest effort to include such a character as normal.

Do you have a link to the tweet so I can see the wording? He makes a LOT of tweets about a lot of things, including many miscellaneous details of what he's writing, and I'm not convinced it wasn't just yet another random detail.

On Androl...there are really far too many problems to list. Suffice to say that a lot of people feel like the climax of a 25 year long series should actually involve the main characters from the last 25 years rather than a last minute Mary-Sue author insert. As crazy as that seems.

If you're talking about the Black Tower plot specifically, you have a point. If you're talking about the series as a whole, Androl's portion of the climax was one part among dozens, and a fairly small part at that.

Well, feel free to elaborate.

Spoiler

Show

The first novel had an interesting antagonist(who could have stood to be better developed). The second and third novel had a nebulous antagonist. It moved from fighting an oppressive functional regime, led by an evil man who thinks he is doing good, to fighting against a universal force of uncomplicated evil. Blah blah blah.

And Elend becoming king was nonsensical. The vast Empire described in the first book didn't get any prominence. The collapse of a kingdom that has been around for thousands of years is just not given weight. The second book is in the middle of that collapse, and it comes across as nothing more than a squabble between Elend and his dad.

The third book was better than the second, and it actually all built up to a good climax. Sazed is a good character. But I didn't like the harmony-ruin plotline at all, and that's what it was built around. Evil mind controlling spikes aren't a good plot device.

Spoiler

Show

The first book was fighting against an evil man who is evil, and that was pretty much it. There was a small hint at the end that he thinks he's doing good, but that's all, unless you count his perpetual frustration with the peasants always resisting him. The backstory and explanations that make him well intentioned don't come out until books 2 and 3, and those explanations developed the world in interesting ways.

Sure, Ruin isn't particularly complex, but the sheer magnitude of power and knowledge disparity between him and the protagonists made for an interesting conflict dynamic.

I never really got the impression that the Lord Ruler's empire was vast. It was just that there was nothing outside it but barren wasteland. As for its collapse, I don't think Rashek was really involved much in the day to day operation of things - most of the empire could function just fine without him, so the aftermath of his death was mostly just politics until Ruin got active. Book 2's politics came across as mostly a squabble between Elend and his dad because that's kind of what it was - the coup began with engineering a major house war, remember, so all the other major would-be claimants were some combination of dead, driven off, or intimidated.

I happened to like the Preservation-Ruin plotline, so *shrug*. Different people, different opinions.

[Anteros]

Do you have a link to the tweet so I can see the wording? He makes a LOT of tweets about a lot of things, including many miscellaneous details of what he's writing, and I'm not convinced it wasn't just yet another random detail.

No, I don't save random Tweets. It was a whole...thing though. I'm sure you could dig up the whole silly debate on the Dragonmount forums if you wanted. For what it's worth, I didn't really think it was that bad in the book itself . I wouldn't have thought it particularly out of place without the whole Tweet controversy.

If you're talking about the Black Tower plot specifically, you have a point. If you're talking about the series as a whole, Androl's portion of the climax was one part among dozens, and a fairly small part at that.

He's almost half the book. He has more screen time than any other character including the ones the book is supposed to actually be about.

Androl subplots in AMoL:
Androl solves the Black Tower crisis
Androl resolves the Aes Sedai bonding Asha'man subplot
Androl saves the armies at Caemlyn
Androl invents a new type of waygate instrumental to winning the last battle
Androl comes up with a new super special form of telepathy with his Aes Sedai warder
Androl has red ajah Aes sedai falling in love with him
Androl saves the keys to the Dark One's prison
Androl convinces Logain to help the refugees instead of going after the Sa'angreal
Androl saves the Dragon cannons for the last battle.
Androl captures the remaining Black Ajah

It's not even Wheel of Time at this point. It's "The Adventures of Androl! With Occasional Special Guest Appearances by WoT Characters!"

I have no idea how Sanderson ever thought it was an acceptable conclusion to the series, and no idea how it made it past editing.

[Lord Raziere]

One of my favorite authors, I'd have to tilt my head at people who say he has bad characterization though, all the characters seem to have motivations that make sense, reactions that make sense and character development that makes you feel emotions for them, and the situations he creates are often very dynamic and chaotic as a climax that does't feel artificial or planned out, yet everything works out in a way that fits together anyways. that and who else are you going to find with such great magic systems?

[Selrahc]

Spoiler

Show

The first book was fighting against an evil man who is evil, and that was pretty much it. There was a small hint at the end that he thinks he's doing good, but that's all, unless you count his perpetual frustration with the peasants always resisting him. The backstory and explanations that make him well intentioned don't come out until books 2 and 3, and those explanations developed the world in interesting ways.

Sure, Ruin isn't particularly complex, but the sheer magnitude of power and knowledge disparity between him and the protagonists made for an interesting conflict dynamic.

I never really got the impression that the Lord Ruler's empire was vast. It was just that there was nothing outside it but barren wasteland. As for its collapse, I don't think Rashek was really involved much in the day to day operation of things - most of the empire could function just fine without him, so the aftermath of his death was mostly just politics until Ruin got active. Book 2's politics came across as mostly a squabble between Elend and his dad because that's kind of what it was - the coup began with engineering a major house war, remember, so all the other major would-be claimants were some combination of dead, driven off, or intimidated.

I happened to like the Preservation-Ruin plotline, so *shrug*. Different people, different opinions.

Spoiler

Show

I think you're looking back on the first book with knowledge you gained later. In the first book for the majority of the story we are presented with extracts from the journal of the man we believe is the Emperor, and in the clips we are presented he comes across as genuine and benevolent. The discovery that he is not that man and is in fact Rashek, is at the centre of the plot to defeat him. For most of the novel the presentation is that the man who became the emperor is thinking mostly of the good of others in his earliest memoirs... so why has he done the things he has done? It's interesting. Much more interesting than Ruin.

The world being "mostly barren" seems like an impression you have picked up more from the later books, because in the first book there are constant references to the scale of the empire, the vast canalways linking to the outer dominances which supply the bustling interior. But the unruly outer fringes are where the majority of the vast legions are stationed. The far off Terris dominance, where one of the main characters originates from, and where the Emperor is actually from. That same character constantly regales the group with extinct religions from the many cultures of the world that have been brought to heel. The world in the first book felt busy. And in the second book it felt small.

(I also felt like the collapse of the really really brutal divide between Skaa and Nobles didn't get enough narrative attention. That was maybe too difficult a subject to handle well though.)

[CarpeGuitarrem]

One of my favorite authors, I'd have to tilt my head at people who say he has bad characterization though, all the characters seem to have motivations that make sense, reactions that make sense and character development that makes you feel emotions for them, and the situations he creates are often very dynamic and chaotic as a climax that does't feel artificial or planned out, yet everything works out in a way that fits together anyways. that and who else are you going to find with such great magic systems?

I can see it in some of his books (at least, limited characterization), but anyone who says that in light of the existing Stormlight books? Man, I would recommend those books on the strength of their characterization. (Elantris as well, and Warbreaker has its really potent moments in terms of character work.)

[Anteros]

One of my favorite authors, I'd have to tilt my head at people who say he has bad characterization though, all the characters seem to have motivations that make sense, reactions that make sense and character development that makes you feel emotions for them, and the situations he creates are often very dynamic and chaotic as a climax that does't feel artificial or planned out, yet everything works out in a way that fits together anyways. that and who else are you going to find with such great magic systems?

I think his characters do have clear motivations and typically their actions make sense for those motivations. They're just also mostly one dimensional and shallow.

I can see it in some of his books (at least, limited characterization), but anyone who says that in light of the existing Stormlight books? Man, I would recommend those books on the strength of their characterization. (Elantris as well, and Warbreaker has its really potent moments in terms of character work.)

I haven't read Stormlight, but I wouldn't call the characterization in Elantris or Warbreaker particularly good. The characters are likable, but that's not the same as good. I do consider those two books to be his best work though.

[Pronounceable]

Sanderson is great. He's not talented, but I don't care about talent. Talent is overrated. I care about originality, which his works always provide. He also works so much harder than more talented writers, so I like him more than them. He's also improving exponentially with time and will be one of the greatest fantasy writers in a decade.

He does need cutting down though, every single one of his shorter works are better than his bigass epics.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I haven't read Stormlight, but I wouldn't call the characterization in Elantris or Warbreaker particularly good. The characters are likable, but that's not the same as good. I do consider those two books to be his best work though.

So for me, it's not necessarily the characterization of everyone in the stories, but rather the particular development of certain significant characters in those stories. The God-Emperor in Warbreaker, and Raoden in Elantris. There was a particular concept that he captured acutely in each of them, and he built that into something that resonated with me, at least.

[Anteros]

So for me, it's not necessarily the characterization of everyone in the stories, but rather the particular development of certain significant characters in those stories. The God-Emperor in Warbreaker, and Raoden in Elantris. There was a particular concept that he captured acutely in each of them, and he built that into something that resonated with me, at least.

Well, those are his best books. The problem is that for every Raoden there's 10 Vins or Vashers who are just shallow and boring.

[Douglas]

Well, those are his best books. The problem is that for every Raoden there's 10 Vins or Vashers who are just shallow and boring.

I disagree about Vin, and Vasher is mostly a background character. Important, but not the focus of much narrative.

[Anteros]

I disagree about Vin, and Vasher is mostly a background character. Important, but not the focus of much narrative.

A huge portion of the plot revolves around him. I would only consider him a background character because he has no personality.

[Dragonus45]

A huge portion of the plot revolves around him. I would only consider him a background character because he has no personality.

His actions have a great effect on the plot, and the setting really, but he himself doesn't actually do much in the story.

[Douglas]

He does things, and what he does has major consequences, but the plot of the book is fundamentally not his story.

Anyway, there are obviously strong and conflicting opinions about Brandon Sanderson's work. Typical for most popular authors, really. Hard to tell which side you'd agree with, danzibr, without actually trying a book for yourself. I recommend Mistborn for your trial book, or The Emperor's Soul if you prefer a stronger character focus.

[Starwulf]

I'd actually recommend Elantris, that was my first Sanderson book(totally by random, it's cover art piqued my interest at a yearly book sale I go to so I grabbed it), I loved it, but I really wish there were other books added onto it, the whole premise of it was flipping awesome and could have really been expanded upon.

[Douglas]

I'd actually recommend Elantris, that was my first Sanderson book(totally by random, it's cover art piqued my interest at a yearly book sale I go to so I grabbed it), I loved it, but I really wish there were other books added onto it, the whole premise of it was flipping awesome and could have really been expanded upon.

I liked Elantris, but it was his very first published book and he's improved a lot since then.