|
This Post Sucks posted:The worst thing about Lightsong was that I listened to it on Audiobook and man was the voice actor horrible. Lightsong sounded like Keanu Reeves from Point Break (well, every movie, but still). That would suck. Whoa. Whoever posted that Lightsong's humor was "dad humor" a few pages back was right. You either love that poo poo or you hate it.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:That would suck. Whoa. It's also hilarious that everyone around him pretty much rolls their eyes at everything he says but can't do anything about it because he's a god.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
Mahlertov Cocktail posted:It's also hilarious that everyone around him pretty much rolls their eyes at everything he says but can't do anything about it because he's a god. See, that was my favorite part of Lightsong; he realized that, as a god, no one could say a drat word against him. So he didn't bother trying to be wise or insightful, and instead just made lame dad jokes. I don't LOVE Warbreaker, but, I did like his character.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
I liked Warbreaker. Half the time I think it would have been better 100 pages shorter, and half the time I think it would have been better 100 pages longer (spending most of that time with Vasher, preferably). I think mostly the problem is that the various gods except Susebron just fall flat for me. And Susebron can't really get involved until near the end of the book, for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 14:15
|
|
|
The guy in the local geek-store told me Elantris is set in the same world as Mistborn, and that it's a good introduction to Sanderson and Mistborn. Now I see that there's no indication that it's set in that world. Did he lie to me?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
Black Griffon posted:The guy in the local geek-store told me Elantris is set in the same world as Mistborn, and that it's a good introduction to Sanderson and Mistborn. Now I see that there's no indication that it's set in that world. Did he lie to me? Yes...and No. Elantris is a different world from Mistborn, but they are in the same "cosmere" as Sanderson likes to put it. All of Sanderson's worlds and magic systems (except his YA and WOT books) are all part of a shared cosmere. The short version is that there used to be a mega-god called Adonalsium. Something happened, and he shattered into 16 Shards. Each of these shards where taken up by men and they became Gods, respectively. Most of the Sanderson worlds have 2 or 3 gods that operate a certain magic system. There is a way to travel between the worlds through a plane called the Shadesmar, and there is a character named Hoid who shows up in each of the Sanderson books in some fashion. Having said all that, each of these books and worlds stand on their own! Its not necessary to learn that they are all connected in order to enjoy them, and most people don't even connect the dots on their first readings. If you want to learn more, visit the Coppermind (wiki) at https://www.17thshard.com The goon approved reading order, if you want to see if like Sanderson books, is to start with the first Mistborn book. By the end of that, you will know whether you like the author or not. If you want to continue, finish out the Mistborn trilogy, then decide if you want to continue on into Elantris, Warbreaker, or Stormlight Archive: The Way of Kings. Cartoon Man fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Jul 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
Essentially yes. Elantris is set in the same overarching multiverse/universe as Mistborn but the magic systems have nothing to do with each other and they arent set on the same planet. Also I believe he wrote Elantris much earlier than Mistborn so the writing won't be as good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
Neato! I've already bought Elantris, that's why I'm asking. I'm gonna be able to read it in good conscience now, though. And since I have a six hour bus trip ahead of me, I'm gonna need that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 16:08
|
|
|
Black Griffon posted:Neato! I've already bought Elantris, that's why I'm asking. I'm gonna be able to read it in good conscience now, though. And since I have a six hour bus trip ahead of me, I'm gonna need that. Elantris is a little slow to get started, but once the ball starts rolling it doesn't stop. This is true for most of Sanderson's books but it's especially true for Elantris.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
Elantris suffers a bit from having 3 point of view characters who are all given equal time in the book. One of these characters is just not very interesting, so it can kind of drag when you get to her chapters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
keiran_helcyan posted:One of these characters is just not very interesting Three different goons will give you three different answers as to which it is. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
I think you mean two because nobody is going to find Hrathen uninteresting. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
Mahlertov Cocktail posted:I think you mean two because nobody is going to find Hrathen uninteresting. I swear that somebody posted in this thread about how awful he was. In my opinion, he's still one of the best Sanderson characters from all his books. His story arc is 10 times more interesting than the other two. Though I do love the last four or so chapters with Raoden. Man, my WOT re-read is almost done, then I got a Dresden files re-read to do, after which it will be time to start my Sanderson re-read again. Wash, rinse, repeat. Unless I have the balls to start up Malazan for the first time, but that series intimidates me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
Cartoon Man posted:Unless I have the balls to start up Malazan for the first time, but that series intimidates me. I'm putting off starting Memories of Ice even though I liked Deadhouse Gates because they are loving exhausting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
I quit Elantris halfway through, because I found all three protagonists uninteresting. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
Mahlertov Cocktail posted:I think you mean two because nobody is going to find Hrathen uninteresting. I didn't really like him at all until his last 3 or 4 chapters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Jorenko posted:I didn't really like him at all until his last 3 or 4 chapters. Well, he was sorta lukewarm until then as well for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
Elantris and Warbreaker are both pretty bad yet I absolutely love Mistborn despite its faults and Way of Kings was awesome and Stormlight Archive seems like it will be a tremendous series. Definitely start with Mistborn, though. I didn't even know about this 'cosmere' thing until I read about it on the 17th shard wiki after I finished Way of Kings; just figured Hoid was some sort of recurring character but not connected in an overarching manner. I think that's just a great way to build anticipation for other books, to make loosely connected works like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
Cartoon Man posted:Three different goons will give you three different answers as to which it is. People tend to differ on whether Hrathen or Prince Raoden are the best chapters, but I've yet to hear anyone say Sarene was their favorite POV. Personally I thought Hrathen had the most interesting character, Raoden had interesting things happen to or around him, but Sarene's chapters were just a mess of boring politics and that family with their "amusing" children.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
I've read pretty much everything except for the WOT stuff and Elantris and enjoyed it. I skipped Elantris because I heard the writing wasn't great, but given that I've enjoyed all of his other stuff is it worth trying? Is the writing really bad, or did I just get bad information?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
Yay Pudding! posted:I've read pretty much everything except for the WOT stuff and Elantris and enjoyed it. I skipped Elantris because I heard the writing wasn't great, but given that I've enjoyed all of his other stuff is it worth trying? Is the writing really bad, or did I just get bad information? The last third of the book is very good. If you don't mind what is, honestly, a slog at times, it's worth it, and he apparently plans a sequel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
Elantris isn't terrible or anything, it's just very obviously his first published book. His flaws are most apparent in it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
Jorenko posted:I didn't really like him at all until his last 3 or 4 chapters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Elantris isn't terrible or anything, it's just very obviously his first published book. His flaws are most apparent in it. Yeah, this. If you read it after having read Way of Kings, it's particularly noticeable how much clunkier the writing is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
Have any of you read Gaunt's Ghosts? Would you compare it to how Abnett's first Ghosts book is incredibly clunky compared to the next ones?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
Black Griffon posted:Have any of you read Gaunt's Ghosts? Would you compare it to how Abnett's first Ghosts book is incredibly clunky compared to the next ones? I'd say somewhat. First and Only tackled problems in a manner that felt overly ambitious and somewhat cliche. Elantris suffers somewhat by giving three viewpoints about equal screen time and it didn't feel like it paid off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
Cartoon Man posted:I swear that somebody posted in this thread about how awful he was. In my opinion, he's still one of the best Sanderson characters from all his books. His story arc is 10 times more interesting than the other two. Though I do love the last four or so chapters with Raoden. It's not that bad. Lengthy, yeah, but Erikson does a good job of keeping the plots moving. It's a bit confusing when you start it for the first time, but just soldier on. You never really understand the first book of Malazan until you finish Book 10 then re-read Book 1.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 15:59
|
|
|
I've finished Alloy of Law, and while it was pretty interesting to see what happened between the end of the Mistborn Triology and Alloy of Law, I didn't care for the Characters as much. They all seemed very 1 dimensional compared to the characters in the Trilogy. What's the next logical book to pick up if I want to stick with Sanderson?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 16:11
|
|
|
Xachariah posted:You never really understand the first book of Malazan until you finish Book 10 then re-read Book 1. You never really understand the first book regardless because it was written 10 years before any of the others and is vastly inferior to the books that follow in pretty much every way, and a lot of stuff from it was simply retconned later on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
I've tried to start reading Malazan at least 3 times in my life and I just can't do it. The first book is just too bad. Too cliche. Too generic fantasy. I keep hearing it gets better, but I can't push through.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
Phummus posted:I've finished Alloy of Law, and while it was pretty interesting to see what happened between the end of the Mistborn Triology and Alloy of Law, I didn't care for the Characters as much. They all seemed very 1 dimensional compared to the characters in the Trilogy. Way of Kings, book 1 of the Stormlight Archive. There's lots of worldbuilding going on, but its all awesome and you should be excited to see where the next book goes with it. Book 2 should come out sometime next holiday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
soru posted:I've tried to start reading Malazan at least 3 times in my life and I just can't do it. The first book is just too bad. Too cliche. Too generic fantasy. I keep hearing it gets better, but I can't push through. I don't want to clog up the Sanderson thread with Malazan talk, but I'll be another voice to say that there's nothing at all cliche or generic about the series.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
After reading all of Sanderson's books I'm slowly chugging my way through the first Malazen book as well. It's not so bad. I have no idea what's happening but it's actually kinda fun piecing it together. But it's hardly a page turner. That's something Sanderson does really well. Once the avalanche gets going there really is no stopping it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
Sanderson tells a significantly better and more satisfying story than Erikson for certain. Erikson's a master of world-building in an exotic but fully realized universe, but Sanderson is a far better storyteller. His characters make more sense and are more relatable, as well, even if neither can really count characterization as a strength like Abercrombie or Martin can. Sanderson benefits from editing because it tightens up what is already a tightly woven story, while Erikson's works are really hurt by their general lack of any editing whatsoever. As authors I'd rate both on par with each other, though Sanderson seems to improve with each book while Erikson's second and third novels are probably his best; after that he seems to have fallen in love with his own storytelling and never improved. Gardens of the Moon is just in general pretty cliche and boring, though, even if the Malazan series taken as a whole is far from cliche or boring and should keep you occupied for the better part of a year. HeroOfTheRevolution fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Jul 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 15:20
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:Sanderson tells a significantly better and more satisfying story than Erikson for certain. Erikson's a master of world-building in an exotic but fully realized universe, but Sanderson is a far better storyteller. His characters make more sense and are more relatable, as well, even if neither can really count characterization as a strength like Abercrombie or Martin can. Sanderson benefits from editing because it tightens up what is already a tightly woven story, while Erikson's works are really hurt by their general lack of any editing whatsoever. As authors I'd rate both on par with each other, though Sanderson seems to improve with each book while Erikson's second and third novels are probably his best; after that he seems to have fallen in love with his own storytelling and never improved. I really can't disagree with this more. I like Sanderson, but his stories have very little real depth to them and very, very few of his characters leave a lasting impression (on me), especially compared to the likes of Mappo and Karsa from Malazan. Erikson, to me, has the strongest plot and character arcs in the genre, particularly because he doesn't go into his work treating his cast like poo poo out of spite like Abercrombie and Martin do while also having a very clear picture of what he wants to do with them (though this is a jab more directed at Martin) . Sanderson and the others mentioned have also never really gotten an emotional response from me on par with what Erikson has, and if they have, it's not been as consistently as Erikson who managed to legitimately move me for 9 books in a row (Gardens had a few moments but everything from Deadhouse Gates and beyond is amazing to me). Granted, I do have an extremely strong bias toward Malazan just because Erikson made "dark" fantasy that doesn't rely on and in actuality pretty much completely shits on the overwhelming cynicism others in this particular subgenre are fond of Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Jul 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
I agree, but I feel like Sanderson is still growing. I didn't feel much of a connection with any of the Mistborn characters, despite them being good books, but Way of Kings is such a big improvement compared to that. And the man just doesn't stop, I don't think he's going to stop improving any time soon. I also kind of like how he's not doing the whole disturbing sex scenes thing. Looking at you here, Martin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
Ethereal Duck posted:I agree, but I feel like Sanderson is still growing. I didn't feel much of a connection with any of the Mistborn characters, despite them being good books, but Way of Kings is such a big improvement compared to that. And the man just doesn't stop, I don't think he's going to stop improving any time soon. Oh yeah, I absolutely do want to make it clear that I think Sanderson is still growing as an author. Way of Kings was a good step forward for him, and I'm looking forward to seeing where he is as a writer by the time he finishes it. And yeah the whole "Not being a huge loving creeper" is also a plus. That said, while people complain about ~philosophy words~ with Erikson, my biggest complaint with Sanderson is still ~action words~. I think I skim most action scenes he writes until I get to where they begin to conclude just because I don't find them particularly interesting. I don't mind them as much when it's large engagements, but I much prefer the short and sweet fights Erikson goes with when it comes to smaller ones. I think there's just more impact to be found in them when the engagement is quick and the ending is sudden, basically hitting the reader with a bus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Erikson, to me, has the strongest plot and character arcs in the genre, particularly because he doesn't go into his work treating his cast like poo poo out of spite like Abercrombie and Martin do while also having a very clear picture of what he wants to do with them (though this is a jab more directed at Martin) Erikson has seven trillion characters in his books and only a few of them receive anything more than a cursory amount of depth, while the rest speak with the same voice. He's a good writer and manages to trick the reader into thinking his characters have more depth than he's actually written into the story (often by having his other paper-thin characters react thusly), but upon re-reading the books their actions very often make little to no sense. Even major characters are very rarely differentiated. I liked Stormy and Gesler's arc a lot, for example, (and the one scene in the last book where one mentions the mouse dying tugged real hard on my emotions, which is something I gave Erikson a lot of credit for since it's rare fantasy novels manage that) but I couldn't tell you much about both and certainly nothing unique about either immediately after finishing the series. Sanderson's characters in Mistborn are similarly poor, but the cast at least has the advantage of being much smaller. Way of Kings was an improvement in every way, though, and I think it's only going to get better from here. Like I said, Sanderson's improved with every book and Erikson seems to get worse (largely because he needs a strict editor to keep his ambitious plots in check).
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:only a few of them receive anything more than a cursory amount of depth, while the rest speak with the same voice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:Sanderson's characters in Mistborn are similarly poor, but the cast at least has the advantage of being much smaller. Way of Kings was an improvement in every way, though, and I think it's only going to get better from here. Like I said, Sanderson's improved with every book and Erikson seems to get worse (largely because he needs a strict editor to keep his ambitious plots in check). It's kind of funny, because Jordan was going in the same direction, and Sanderson has done a wonderful job of whipping all of the myriad plot threads into shape. I think his problem was poor editing as well - there was just a lot of unnecessary fluff in books 8-10 especially. Sanderson's greatest strength seems to be in making everything "fit together" at the end which hopefully keeps him out of the "more plots!" trap that multiple other fantasty-epic writers have fallen into (Martin, Erikson, Jordan). I'm just a sucker for a good ending - it doesn't have to even be "good wins" but when everything has a purpose it really makes me enjoy a story a lot more. So Sanderson is definitely one of my favorite current writers, and I hope he continues to improve the other parts of his writing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 21:38
|
|
