I only came across this hoopla by accident today but I think it says all sorts of interesting things about publishing, about how the public and the media judge books, and about what it means to be a successful author. Wired (the one you used to pick up in airport newsagents) has published a, err, rather personal assessment of Brandon Sanderson, the wildly profitable fantasy author, him of elaborate worlds, neatly woven plots, modestly interesting characters and workman-like prose. It insults his religion, his fans, his home town, his taste in food, his son, his lifestyle and his character. You can read it here, its called Brandon Sanderson is Your God: https://www.wired.com/story/brandon-sanderson-is-your-god/ Sanderson, being a gent, responded rather sweetly on Reddit asking his fans to respect the piece and the journalist: reddit~brandonsanderson/comments/1200dzk [EDIT: Wiritingforums breaks the Reddit link so replace the tilde with ".com/r/"] Now, weirdly mean spirited and apparently jealous reporting aside, I do think its let some air in on a tricky point, which is how to measure quality in genres where there is no longer meaningful critique outside of the fandom. I remember years ago trying to find proper critiques or reviews of Pratchett books, but the consensus seemed to be, "Eh, whats the point? The plebs will buy them whatever we say, so why engage?" Sanderson really is rather boring on a sentence level, as the journalist points out. His prose is objectively dull and constantly deflates what might otherwise be great scenes. But it works. I keep listening to his audiobooks despite myself, even though if I ever wrote a page like one of his I'd immediately wipe it and start again. Why? because if I ever wrote a whole novel like one of his I'd be fantastically pleased with myself. The sheer competence of tying it all together amazes.
To be fair, the Wired columnist did say, in the last paragraph, 'So many of us mistake sentences for story, but story is the thing. Things happening. Characters changing. Surprise endings.' I haven't read Sanderson, and probably won't, since I'm more about prose than most. ETA: I didn't mean to say the piece wasn't a hatchet job. It is a snarky, snotty, condescending example of what journalism has sunk to.
I find the most harsh critiques come from the hardest-cored of fans. They tend to know it inside and out, appreciate it in a narrower context, then tear it so thoroughly to shreds that other fans even take offense. I wonder if there are any out there for Pratchett's library. This is a positively strange argument here, from the article: The comparisons make no sense. Shoveled Atwood in between J.K and George (how, even?), then implies a middling season of Wheel of Time is an adaptation along the lines of GoT. Poor take. Can't disagree about the mediocre prose, though. I hope it at least gets better than in Elantris, which was a great story otherwise. Ultimately the author is begging the question that a writer should be famous in the literary sphere if he has a vast audience. It's a non-issue. In fact, it might be causal. Literary works seem to get more critical praise due to their overt modern cultural context and passages that require a certain pretense to be appreciated—the kind of thing people read escapism fantasy to avoid.
Elantris really clunked its way from page to page, agreed. I'm not sure I'd say it was otherwise great, but it had it's qualities, notably the description of being suspended in a state of pain as an Elantrian and of Elantris's grime and squalour. But the characters were passable at best and some obvious points for emotional high points, such as the King being discovered Spoiler making human sacrifices were totally mishandled in the rush to build build build that world. Way of Kings is much better
Is there any need? Like, any? If the bloke had done something worthy of a hit job, such as covered up a major international fraud, was the front-man for a drugs ring, murdered his in-laws, or supported Leeds United, then it would be a valid criticism of him. People like him. Let people like him without being a wazzock about it. I can think of many things I haven't enjoyed and writers I don't particularly rate, but I tend not to drift into personal criticisms. Unless it's Jeffrey Archer. Special case with the criminal convictions to go with it. Precisely what does it harm if people like Brandon Sanderson? The older I get, the more I have a live and let live approach. I may not rate it, but if someone else does then good for them.
I've read only two of Sanderson's books, the first two Stormlight Archives. I know several people who are fans of Sanderson, and my brother says he's probably his favorite author. I don't think I'd call myself a fan. There are certainly moments in the story where I get blown away by the way he's written a character, but my biggest reaction? He knows what he's doing and it is clinical in its presentation. There is very little substance behind the writing. It's well written in terms of construction and how it all ties together, but for me, it lacks depth past the superficial. It's kind of like how I feel about Stephen King: he found a formula and exploits the shit out of it. I know King has his fans, and I respect him for his body of work and the fact he's made it work, but to me he is not the gift he seems to think he is. I am bored with his storytelling. Much like there are moments with Sanderson when I want him to get to the damn point. At the end of it all, though, it boils down to what someone else said: let people like what they like and leave them alone about it. People are so caught up in having the right opinion on stuff these days and it has to be exhausting. It wears me out listening to it, so usually I don't. Let people like shit, and don't try to convince them why their joy is wrong.
