Is SFF too eager to please?

Well, everyone is entitled to have an opinion and express it. We don't have to agree with it.

He wrote:

Brandon Sanderson’s novels read like they were written by a committee of marketing executives

Click to expand...

I'm thinking this is not a fair or accurate assessment. I'm currently reading a Brandon Sanderson novel (it may actually be a novella) called The Emperor's Soul, and so far it is excellent. Very imaginative, with a strong* female protagonist and a fascinating and unique system of magic. I haven't read his longer works (I noticed The Way of Kings is enormous), but this little gem of a novel is well written and entertaining.

(*By strong, I don't mean a man with breasts. I'm not sure she can fight at all. But she's intelligent and cunning.)

I think that in general, publishing is becoming more methodical about trying to produce best-sellers. I know I've read articles about how the midlist is suffering and certain kinds of experiments are no longer considered acceptable bets. SFF isn't immune to these trends but I'm not sure it is affected by them more heavily than other genres.

This article stopped working for me when he wrote off multiple authors so cursorily. That's too easy of a game to play and I'm not sure it does anyone any good. It leads to searching a book for the first indication of something you don't like and then writing off the rest of it under that label. That might be a comfortable way to live, but I think it's a way of avoiding challenges.

What did I just read?

It sounds suspiciously like the bitter fandom equivalent cry to 'stop writing what I don't like to read' sprinkled with 'and stop having fun writing what you like to write because I don't like it'.

bearilou said:

It sounds suspiciously like the bitter fandom equivalent cry to 'stop writing what I don't like to read' sprinkled with 'and stop having fun writing what you like to write because I don't like it'.

Click to expand...

That was my impression of it too. A little bit of insecurity, posing itself to look like snobbery, and a lot of entitlement about how all books should be books this guy likes.

Because what he likes is objectively good art, right? Of course he's the sole arbiter of good taste on this planet--that's far more likely than the possibility that his tastes have no more consequence than anybody else's.

Ha! Well thanks for your responses people. Have been travelling or would have commented sooner.

Apologies if the piece read as a rant to you. It's really more of an observation from my part. I'm only judging books by Sanderson, Rothfuss et al on their own criteria. They're setting out to be good quality fantasy but failing. Weak plots. Thin characters. Cliched. Not a patch on, for instance, George R R Martin. It's just a shame that a genre with lots of potential is at the moment flooded with a lot of books that fail by their own standards.

BethS said:

I'm thinking this is not a fair or accurate assessment. I'm currently reading a Brandon Sanderson novel (it may actually be a novella) called The Emperor's Soul, and so far it is excellent. Very imaginative, with a strong* female protagonist and a fascinating and unique system of magic. I haven't read his longer works (I noticed The Way of Kings is enormous), but this little gem of a novel is well written and entertaining.

(*By strong, I don't mean a man with breasts. I'm not sure she can fight at all. But she's intelligent and cunning.)

Click to expand...

Actually... I have to agree about the Sanderson bit. Sanderson is a good writer, but he twists and holds back a lot of things so they are more widely accessible to others. He also extends and over explains things to the point that it either becomes redundant, 'cause it almost seems that he has little to no faith with the reader. Read his longer stories and you start to see it. (Ouch Will!)

I agree with the author of this piece on only one point, all authors have an obligation to put a twist on an already tread paths, if that author fails to do so it tends to seem blah to me.
Also super weak counter by the author on this board, I mean come on guy, you write this elaborate article and then come on here with generalities

acockey said:

Also super weak counter by the author on this board, I mean come on guy, you write this elaborate article and then come on here with generalities WTF?

Click to expand...

That seems a little rude, acockey. He said exactly what he didn't like about the books and gave an example of a writer he admires. That's pretty specific. Besides, he wrote the full blog post that birthed this thread, so he hardly needs to rehash those points here.

Welcome, Mr. Walter, and kudos on your polite and friendly contribution to the conversation.

@jj simply saying that he really did counter point anyone, just came in and said "hey there", my intention was to show my disappointment that he couldn't provide a deeper insight on why he dislikes those authors.

acockey said:

simply saying that he really did counter point anyone, just came in and said "hey there", my intention was to show my disappointment that he couldn't provide a deeper insight on why he dislikes those authors.

Click to expand...

Saying "WTF" and calling his post "super weak" doesn't show any conversational depth either. If you're curious for more insights, ask him questions instead of sneering.

damiengwalter said:

I'm only judging books by Sanderson, Rothfuss et al on their own criteria. They're setting out to be good quality fantasy but failing.

Click to expand...

Wait, I thought the premise was that they were setting out to be crowd-pleasers, and succeeding.

I could give a long and detailed post about why I'm not so much in love with the novels I've read from Sanderson and Rothfuss. But I'm afraid it might verge on disrespecting my fellow writers - and I have vast respect for these two authors' achievements. Also, I recently stumbled across a much-hyped new fantasy author who makes Sanderson and Rothfuss look like James Joyce and T.S. Eliot. Complaining about the new wunderkind will do nothing but make me sad for my beloved genre.

I think there are great, challenging, and entertaining books being published all the time. It just depends where you look.

@Filigree would you perchance name this new author, what is implied by the "T.S. Elliot, James Joyce" comment

Whenever anyone starts with so and so wouldn't be published today, there's no point in reading another word. You're dealing with a dummy.

Plus, the market changes from year to year, much less decade to decade. This is a good thing. How boring would things be if we were still stuck with the old versions of 'Horseclans' and 'Dragonlance'?

Acockey, I repped you on the name. But I will say in public that by comparison, Sanderson and Rothfuss are brilliant at action, setting, characterization, and pace. Not to mention philosophical depth.

damiengwalter said:

Ha! Well thanks for your responses people. Have been travelling or would have commented sooner.

Apologies if the piece read as a rant to you. It's really more of an observation from my part. I'm only judging books by Sanderson, Rothfuss et al on their own criteria. They're setting out to be good quality fantasy but failing. Weak plots. Thin characters. Cliched. Not a patch on, for instance, George R R Martin. It's just a shame that a genre with lots of potential is at the moment flooded with a lot of books that fail by their own standards.

Click to expand...

Well it's certainly an opinion

Welcome to the boards etc etc.

Now we could bat subjective opinions back and forth all day and night. GRRM is a good author (Ilove some of his previous owrk), but personally I found ASOIAF dull and I felt disconnected by the constant POV shifting. I also found most of the characters dull and ended up skipping most of them.That doesn't make it bad, or even that he fails at what he set out to do, that makes it something I don't care for.

And the premise of your post is something I've heard time and again (cliche!) and it still sounds like 'a book is rubbish unless it challenges everyone'. Which is an opinion, not a fact, and one I and many readers don't share Not to mention what I find a breeze someone else finds challenging and vice versa. So who are we challenging here?

There are books out there for everyone, of all stripes. And I for one am glad, because those books all the critics fawn over? They tend to send me to sleep for the most part. Who cares how challenging they are if they bore me silly?* There's nothing to say that books can't do both - in fact to my mind the best books DO do both. Entertain first, then challenge. Win win!



*I was quite tempted to pick up Osama today, but didn't quite have the cash on me. Maybe next week.

@MrFlibble - It's simply not a subjective opinion regarding Sanderson / Rothfuss. They attempt plots and characters that they fail to deliver. Again, I'm not demanding that they 'challenge' the reader. I'm pointing out that they don't succeed *by their own criteria*, not by any subjective criteria I'm applying. I really love and enjoy well rounded, story driven fantasy. Rothfuss / Sanderson just aren't it.

A point worth noting about epic fantasy is that it is *very* difficult to write. But it's perhaps the most popular single literary genre. So the simple fact is, second rate fantasy can still sell well because there is demand. In commercial terms the difference between a JRR Tolkien / George R R Martin is clear...they are genuine masters of the genre, while Sanderson and Rothfuss are also rans who are riding the crest of a wave other writers created.

damiengwalter said:

@MrFlibble - It's simply not a subjective opinion regarding Sanderson / Rothfuss.

Click to expand...

No, it simply is. Other readers have different opinions. There isn't an objective truth here.

Personally, I can't stand GRRM's Game of Thrones series. I find it boring, for a lot of the same reasons I couldn't get into Jordan's Wheel of Time however hard I tried. There are (or seem to be) endless threads of plot that are out of control and wandering off, and I find it not so much 'well rounded' as 'sort of ball-shaped if you ignore all the little tentacles'. It's story-driven, sure - I'm just not sure that the story knows where it's headed or even has a road atlas, which to me means it doesn't succeed by its own criteria. To me (and I am aware that this is very subjective), both Jordan and Martin attempt story and fail to deliver.

Lord of the Rings to me isn't fantasy, it's mythology, and as such has a completely different goal. The point isn't the story, the point is the world (including its history and peoples and themes), and the story is a handy way of showing us the world. It's story-driven in the same way that the Nibelungenlied or the Odyssey are story-driven - which is to say that it both is and isn't. It succeeds by its own criteria, but it ends up shelved with fantasy because the chap wrote it fairly recently. If he'd written it a couple of thousand years ago, it'd be shelved with the other myths in a completely different section of the library. It's only fantasy because while everyone knows it's not real history, it hasn't got the vintage that would give it an air of credibility.

PS: Hi, Damien! Have a seat, grab some beverage of choice, and be welcome!

Could it be, Andre Norton who Le Guin credits as a big influence in her own early writings?

damiengwalter said:

@MrFlibble - It's simply not a subjective opinion regarding Sanderson / Rothfuss. They attempt plots and characters that they fail to deliver. Again, I'm not demanding that they 'challenge' the reader. I'm pointing out that they don't succeed *by their own criteria*, not by any subjective criteria I'm applying. I really love and enjoy well rounded, story driven fantasy. Rothfuss / Sanderson just aren't it.

A point worth noting about epic fantasy is that it is *very* difficult to write. But it's perhaps the most popular single literary genre. So the simple fact is, second rate fantasy can still sell well because there is demand. In commercial terms the difference between a JRR Tolkien / George R R Martin is clear...they are genuine masters of the genre, while Sanderson and Rothfuss are also rans who are riding the crest of a wave other writers created.

Click to expand...

Well you mentioned challenging a fair bit in your post. I did wonder what definition of challenging did you mean?

I'm still not seeing anything here that isn't your subjective opinion. You don't like a couple of authors. Yay, like the rest of us you have your own likes and dislikes. That doesn't make it objective because it is coloured by your subjective opinion (on what makes a good book etc) and the criteria you have assigned.

If it is objective, then what measuring criteria are we using? How are we collecting data? You say 'by their own criteria'. Do you know what their own criteria is? Because I'm assuming they think they've succeeded and so do many of their readers...If we know their criteria, how do we measure the success or otherwise of what the accomplished when so many different readers get different things from the books? Is their criteria subjective? Objective?

If it's objective, then it should be measurable, surely? And not on a subjective 'I like this/don't like it' scale. If not measurable, it should at least be judged independent of emotions etc or whether we 'like' it.

Mr Filbee said in post 42 what I meant to say in my initial post. Very well put my friend