4 ms·
Absolutely. I've found I have a really hard time with how he writes action as well. I always feel as though he's describing someone playing a video game.
by mrcarrot 9y ago
Absolutely. I've found I have a really hard time with how he writes action as well. I always feel as though he's describing someone playing a video game.
- SXX 9y agoMight I guess that you are avid gamer or was one before? Since I had exactly same feeling when I read Mistborn and didn't find agreement on it with some people who are far more into books rather than games. Though I didn't have same problem with any other books probably because they have less action scenes. All his magic systems have well defined mechanics and strict rules behind them so it's kind a expected and I feel like somebody who used to play a lot of games see through it more easily. Whatever it's good or bad depend on your own preferences in fantasy. Personally I see this as a good thing since opposite would be ever repeating contrived coincidence of just-one-another arcane trick rediscovery. Probably these limits on what magic can or cannot do is one of things that make him improve his writing.
- flintchip 9y agoYes! I recently picked up the Way of Kings but found the way he described the action/fantastical elements really jarring. It was like he felt he needed to spell it out rather than let the reader discover it organically. I've been told I need to struggle through though as it's supposedly a great story.
- Cthulhu_ 9y agolike, "<character> cast Fire on <enemy> for 110 dmg (+3 from Ring of Fire)"?
- SXX 9y agoNo, but once he start to introduce some "magic" mechanics he literally describe it in details: how exactly it's works and looks like as if he was describing politicking. Also I took "magic" into quotes since in Cosmere books for the reader (!) it's always more like set of additional physics-like laws of world mechanics rather than some mystery.
- the_af 9y agoThis is of course a matter of taste, but I really dislike this approach to magic/alchemy that Sanderson has. He's explained it before in an illuminating article [1] about his classification of magic systems in "Soft" (less explained, more arbitrary) vs "Hard" (more logical, there are clear/mechanical rules), and how he prefers the latter. I respect this, but I dislike it. To me, magic isn't rational or logical, and overexplanation ruins it. I prefer Tolkien's subtle approach that magic is unexplained, part of the song that made the world -- and in fact, to some of his characters "magic" is a puzzling word. "Like a videogame" is an apt description of Sanderson's approach, and not my thing. Even Jack Vance's magic system of memorizing spells, used in his Dying Earth stories and said to have inspired the Dungeons & Dragons RPG system, is more mysterious and mystical than Sanderson's. Which is the way it should be! [1] https://brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-first-law/ https://brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-first-law/
- jandrese 9y agoYeah, getting too far into the weeds is a quick way to make someone feel like they're reading a D&D rule book, especially if many pages are spent explaining rules that ultimately have no effect on the story. At worst it turns your exciting adventure novel into a textbook for arcane effects practitioners.
- booleandilemma 9y agoIt sounds like his writing would be better served if he just tacked on an appendix with all of the magical minutiae.
- jandrese 9y agoOr just stuff the rules in a fun footnotes when necessary. I've always been a fan of that technique personally, although I understand it is generally discouraged.
- a_t48 9y agoHe does tack on an appendix, which adds in even more details. I personally like it, but I suppose I was also the kind of kid growing up who would be okay reading D&D rulebooks. :)