Discussion in 'Brandon Sanderson' started by Mieriana Souvra, Sep 5, 2017.
Also, that's literally what that thing is....
What would Honor have to do with the investiture on Nalthis?
I think that the whole breath concept might be a different facet of Honor's power - if Hoid can cross between worlds, why can't other things? Also, the presence of Nightwatcher tells me that maybe those two worlds are more closely connected than the others.
Breath is of Endowment, though, and not of Honor.
I don't know the cosmere well enough to argue any point lol. Didn't even know that other thing was a thing lol
I am rereading Oathbringer for the first time now, and WOW, I missed a lot. I don't know if it was because I read it on Kindle, or because I read it too fast, but I see so many things now that I previously missed... All the stuff that happens before they even get to Kholinar...
If you do podcasts, there's a really good one I can recommend that gives a very thorough introduction into the Cosmere.
However, very nutshell summary:
Once upon a time, there was a god named Adonalsium. Humans shattered him into 16 pieces, called shards. Each shard is an aspect of Adonalsium's character, and sixteen people involved in the shattering picked these shards up and became gods themselves. They are deeply influenced by the intent of the shard. For example, the person picking up honor became honorable, the person picking up Odium (who was already an awful guy) became odious. Etc, etc. These shards spread out over the Cosmere and influenced various planets with their own variations of magic. Odium is trying to kill them all.
Read only if you've read the Mistborn trilogy:
I say there are sixteen shards, but two of those (ruin and preservation) have merged into one: harmony.
It would be super cool to see Sazed come in merge the rest of the shards...
Overall I really enjoyed Oathbringer, but it definitely is my least favorite of the three. I can't help but shake the feeling that Brandon is trying to push the world a little fast. I believe it'll probably be worth it in the end, spending two entire books in a 1-year after OB state of the world, but it does make the wait for the next few years suck really bad.
I'm happy to go into more detail, but I so far i've found people generally agree and know what I mean.
I have just finished the book
Time to catch up with the Mistborne series
Zoomed through this thread, thankful for the Spoiler tags because I haven't read it yet!!!!
Honestly, I'm worried about reading it. Because Dalinar is my favourite character, pretty much ever, and I have a huge crush on him am worried that I'm not going to like him after this book or else that he will die!! My husband and sister who have read it are super tight-lipped about it and won't tell me a thing!
Can someone please tell me if I'm still gonna love Dalinar after this book? I don't want to ruin him or myself
I don't know about loving him or not, but he will not die
And that is all I want to say...
No worries about Dalinar. It's a wild ride, but he is my favorite after Oathbringer.
I read all the books and still love Dalinar.
The Cosmere (Stormlight might just edge Mistborn) still remains at the top for me. It is so intricate and fascinating. Oathbringer cemented this for me. Won't go into it since spoilers and it hasn't been a full year but the reveals and the pacing are incredible. Sanderson is this generations Tolkien.
Tolkiem passed to Jordan and now Sanderson in my respects. Albeit different styles and ideals but the characterists and visions are remarkable.
Tolkien never passed to Jordan. I'm sure Jordan tried to make that happen by making Eye of the World practically a copy of Lord of the Rings. When you draw a line from Tolkien to Sanderson, Jordan's writing resides far below that line.
Generally speaking, I agree, although I would add that Tolkien was far from perfect himself. I also think that some things Jordan did were innovative and broke new ground for the genre, and obviously I have a huge soft spot for his saga.
I find it hard to compare Jordan and Sanderson. First off, Jordan started writing almost 30 years ago, and Sanderson has been inspired by him. Sandersons world(s) are perhaps more complex, but Jordans are simpler and more complete. That may of course be because Sandersons system is not yet complete...
Anyway, I very much enjoy both Tolkien, Jordan and Sanderson. In their own way...
I have to disagree, Stephen. Jordan is a lot closer to Tolkien than Sanderson is. Sanderson focuses a lot on magic systems and subverting the traditional heroic myth, whereas Jordan, like Tolkien, focuses a lot on the monomyth/hero's journey as well as cultures, including things like songs and poetry, which of course was Tolkien's mainstay. Plus, while Jordan doesn't do a whole lot of it, he does include the Seanchan language and the Old language, while Sanderson mostly doesn't do that iirc. And Jordan and Tolkien have a much more similar lengthy, descriptive style of prose. Sanderson is definitely a modern fantasy writer with tight prose and sharp action instead of paragraphs of description, which is why he appeals to a lot of readers now, but his writing definitely reads more like he's purposefully trying to subvert Tolkien rather than be inspired by him. I don't think they're similar at all.
Hm. I think they are perhaps more similar than we might credit. You mention, Leira Sedai, that Sanderson focuses a lot on magic systems, but Jordan's One Power and weaves with the elements is a lot more detail than we get from some other sources on how things like that function. And especially for his time, I think it was a very detailed and intriguing system.
At first read, I was ready to grant your point about subversion versus exploration of dominant mythologies, but after some thought I disagree. I would argue that Jordan's incorporation of what are traditionally thought of as "Eastern" philosophies and thought patterns (time as a wheel rather than a line, as one example) was in some ways subversive, and could potentially remain so today in some circles. Yes, Sanderson borrowed from Arthurian lore and Tolkien's works, but he also integrated concepts of Bushido, for example, with regard to borderland cultures.
Sanderson doesn't spend nearly so much time building languages. However, I think you can draw a line from Tolkien (massive investment in languages), to Jordan (what I would call dabbling), to Sanderson. Each of them has in some way evolved the role that language plays in a given saga or cycle. For Sanderson, though, it is much less about translation of words and much more about the cultural impact that language plays in society and changing the meanings attached to given words because the setting we're reading is vastly different from our everyday existence.
For example, Spook's Street Slang in Mistborn:
'Riding the rile of the rids to the right,' Spook said with a nod.
'What are you two babbling about?' Breeze said testily.
'Wasing the was of brightness,' Spook said. 'Nip the having of wishing of this.'
'Ever wasing the doing of this,' Kelsier agreed.
'Ever wasing the wish of having the have,' Ham added with a smile. 'Brighting the wish of wasing the not.'
I do agree with you, though, in terms of prose style. Sanderson doesn't really attempt the expansive descriptions that Jordan and Tolkien spend time on. He likes to thrust you into the world and have you figure out what it's like for yourself, in my opinion.
None of this is to say that one is better than the other - I love all three authors for different reasons. But I do think you can chart a course of intellectual evolution between them.
Separate names with a comma.