|
Way of Kings is really awkward and unwieldy, so if you didn't like the Mistborn books I can't recommend it. The real problem is that it jumps around perspectives AND jumps around chronologically, making it really easy to lose the plot or just get bored with it. And there are a lot of people who seem unhappy, or driven by a secret purpose, or whatever, and you don't find out why until like 700 pages in. Also there are whole chapters given over to perspectives that you never see again, just for worldbuilding. It just isn't a very tight novel. Really all of his other books are put together much better (except warbreaker). I think it's because of the scope of the novel, though. Not only is it designed to be a huge, lifetime spanning series of novels, but Sanderson has already been working on it for a decade or more. I think at times he gets a little lost in the woods in this book. That said, it improves enormously on a second reading. If you can be bothered to get through it twice, the jumping around is less irritating, you pick up on a lot of the early cues that you miss on your first reading, and at least for me it manages to justify giving the second book a chance.
|
#
¿
May 4, 2011 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
Maytag posted:You can't call it awkward and bad because you either had a hard time keeping up or it wasn't a style you enjoy. Everything you mentioned I enjoyed about it and I didn't have a hard time tracking where and when and who the subject was. This is a funny post because a) I didn't say it was awkward because I had a hard time with it, nor did I day it was bad at all, and b) why can't I say that it is bad because I didn't like it (once again I didn't say that or anything like it) but you can say that it's good because you did like it? So basically what I'm getting at here is you are a hypocrite with poor reading comprehension.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
A Nice Boy posted:About 200 pages into WoK, quick question: no there are shitloads of shardblades and shardplates. There used to be entire armies who had them, although that is kind of inconsistent with the type of people who were in those armies, a conflict that will no doubt be central to the whole series.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2011 00:32
|
|
|
anachrodragon posted:Maybe I'm missing why Sanderson is getting praise heaped upon him as a major fantasy writer though. It's because he's an OK writer and the vast majority of fantasy writers aren't. Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman are major fantasy writers and they wrote dragonlance. You don't exactly have to be Faulkner, hth
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2011 13:34
|
|
|
I also dislike that he introduces incredibly boring pov characters who don't advance the plot and never show up again just for the sake of worldbuilding. I'm looking at you, WoK. You could have been 100 pages shorter and no one would have noticed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
Victorkm posted:Wait.... yeah somebody a couple posts up praised it as an example of good Sanderson humor. That's literally Stockholm Syndrome talking though
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:Comparitively good. He didnt rub it in like he usually does with a big ok "LOOK HOW WITTY THIS IS!!!" sign. It's OK Ugly In The Morning, you're safe now. We'll get you the help you need
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2011 20:51
|
|
|
Cartoon Man posted:I've been re-reading Way of Kings and just go to Wit's worst line. (insults / in-sluts) I honestly hate Wit and suspect that he's got the shard of being an unfunny douche, and has used it to undermine people's sense of humor on every world. Every time a character acts like an unfunny douche, he gains power; now he is strong enough to fix everything and restore that magic crystal thing but it's against his nature as a douche The tragedy is he started out as a comedian but was corrupted by his shard. That's also why he's so mean to the retarded/crippled son and tries to justify it as being for the kid's own good. douchegod
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2011 12:20
|
|
|
Cartoon Man posted:Here's something interesting. This is NPR's top 100 Sci-fi / Fantasy books of all time as voted by its users/readers. Gateway's not on it, The Stars My Destination isn't on it, Star Wars novels are. American Gods is on this lits, people think it's the 10th best science ficton novel of all time. This subjective list is BULLSHIT
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2011 12:28
|
|
|
A Nice Boy posted:As usual, Glen Cooke gets no respect. yeah seriously any of his books other than Garret P.I. could be on there. the Starfishers trilogy, the Swordbearer, The Dragon Never Sleeps, Dark War, instrumalities of the night, the first three Black Company books, any of em should be in that list. What idiot would put The Malazan Book of the Fallen on there and leave Glen Cook off? That's like having a list of great books and putting Pride and Prejudice and Zombies on there but not putting anything by Jane Austen in. Not only is what they have not any good, it's derivative poo poo and what it is derived from IS good
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
Jellibean posted:Well, let's be honest, a book where the protagonist tortures, kills, then eats the love of his life is never going to be exactly mainstream. Actually Stranger in a Strange Land is #17 on that list
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2011 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
I really don't like Heinlen at all. He's just such a skeeze. Lazarus Long is the most obvious offender but there is a dude in a bunch of his books including Stranger in a Strange Land who is basically Heinlen's self insert, is a bajillionaire and lives with a bunch of sexy women who he shares with alien visitors. Guh
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2011 13:29
|
|