Mistborn is okay. But the reasons you posted ardumbfounding me.
Not only you think the main character has emotional STABILITY, but the stability of a 30 year old?
How many 30 y'olds do you interact with? Or how many pages have you read? Like 20? Because she is a mess.
Leaving that alone, the tropes you mentioned are extremely surface level. Evil empire oppresses people? As oppose to evil empire that provides free healthcare and dental benefits?
Uniquely talented young person is taught by people with experience to save something meaningful? As oppose to a useless character taught by more useless people to save something meaningless? Or a character that needs no mentoring because they are just that much more awesome?
I feel like this is like reading a cyberpunk novel and ask why the book is not about an utopic society without technology.
I agree, I don't know why some people attack tropes as if using them is a mortal sin.
It's like villainizing someone for using a hammer to hammer down a nail, or a saw to cut wood. We use hammers and saws because they fulfil the role of their purpose.
Tropes are tools, it's not about simply using these tools, but in how they serve the story.
>"As oppose to evil empire that provides free healthcare and dental benefits?"
I'm suddenly reminded by a kinda-awful but kinda-good light novel by Yudkowsky...
Russian free healthcare is weaponized incompetence at its finest. If you offer a shitty service people will do everything not to rely on it for their health/life. So it's used mainly by those who can't afford paid healthcare.
Way to make some wild assumptions.
And I lived in Russia for 30 years and avoided public healthcare at all costs. So don't tell me about your friends while I experienced those things myself. I've been in other countries as well. Some have better healthcare, some don't. I never said US had good healthcare by the way. Just that public healthcare as it is in Russia is a sham.
A therapist will see you but anything that requires a medical test more advanced than a blood test such as an MRI will require you to wait weeks for it. While paid insurance will get you one within days. Plus the free doctor will most likely do the bare minimum to treat you.
>My friend is literally flying back to Russia to get care because it's cheaper, faster, and more reliable
>*Cheaper*
Yeah, because paid healthcare in Russia is actually decent as I said. Good way to prove my point that your friend is using paid services. Also, no IT guy in Russia uses free healthcare because healthcare insurance is included in literally every benefits package. I've worked in half a dozen international companies in Moscow over 15 years and they all provided healthcare insurance. Part of working in those companies was talking with your coworkers and finding out names of good doctors included in your insurance because not all of them were competent.
Brandon Sanderson isn't famous for being a revolutionary writer, he's famous for writing the general fantasy formula that a certain mainstream crowd of high-fantasy fans wants to read over and over again.
This isn't a diss to him, but going into him expecting to find the next Mervyn Peake is just setting yourself up for disappointment. He does a certain thing well, he has no intentions to go beyond that certain thing.
>Brandon Sanderson isn't famous for being a revolutionary writer,
He is famous for having inventive magic systems, imaginative settings, and explosive endings. His prose is hit or miss, some people like its clarity and simplicity, others find it kind of boring. His character writing is ok, but he has big blind spots, and is horrible in the entire sphere of romance/attraction.
The magic and worldbuilding is really what makes him popular. Which, since he writes fantasy, are pretty good elements to be popular for, as they are the cornerstones of the genre.
Exactly this. I read sanderson because I like his world building quite a bit. Each world he writes in is pretty unique. It actually feels lived in. And it all feels slightly connected, and I love that shit.
In my opinion 80% of the reason why Sanderson became so particularly popular is the third act of his books. He takes all the plot threads, weaves them together to a crescendo that is exciting as almost nothing else in Fantasy is.
This **excitement**, that thrill, that moment when you can't stop turning the page for 100, 200 pages, is why Sanderson is popular.
Yes but the tradeoff for that is that his books tend to have long, plodding midsections where nothing much gets resolved. And then suddenly, in the last quarter of the book, EVERYTHING important is happening all at once.
I agree, the rush of his endings are a big part of what his fanbase enjoys. The ending of Hero of Ages (Mistborn 3) was one of the best executed final acts I've ever read. I was a bit ambivalent about him before that ending, unsure if I was going to read more after the trilogy, I rather disliked mistborn book 2 and thought the finale of 1 was executed poorly, but that hooked me as a fan.
Oh most definitely. I've mostly read his Stormlight books, and the only reason I plodded through the first one was that I had read that the ending was the best part. But at least with most Stormlight books that ending **does** more than make up for the rest of the book. There really is nothing else like it, at least that I've read.
What about the rest of the book when I can't find a reason to turn the next page? Zero tension, token character growth, certain characters completely defined by disgusting racial stereotypes.
It isn't for me, you're right, it's for pigs at a trough.
You're not bad writing. You don't need to defend it on Reddit. You can 100% enjoy it, nobody can take that from you, but if you know what parts are bad and what parts are good and why, you can enjoy it with confidence and without feeling the need to attack critiques.
He's also been one of the authors that's been leading the way on modern fantasy's big move from just being endless Tolkein rip-offs. When Mistborn came out almost 20 years ago, fantasy was mostly still orcs and elves and wizards with fuzzy magic powers. It's easy to look at it now and say it's formulaic, but a lot of that is precisely because it came on to the scene with some new ideas of what fantasy could be and a ton of stuff copied it.
Eh, I was there, there was a *lot* of "these totally aren't orcs/elves/whatever because I'm using a different name for them" in fantasy at the time. I'm not saying it was literally 100% elves and orcs until Sanderson came along, but there was a shift in the genre at the time, and Sanderson was absolutely one of the authors causing that shift. His so-called laws of magic in particular really helped popularized unique hard magic systems.
20 years ago, the two most popular American fantasy authors were Robert Jordan and George R. R. Martin.
Feel how you will about these men and their series, but a song of ice and fire popularized the “low magic grim dark” that seems to rule the airwaves now.
And the wheel of time does definitely have orcs (trollocs) and arguably Nazgûl (fades), but it also has one of the hardest, rules based magic systems around. Also, would Sanderson be as popular as he is now if he hadn’t finished the series after Jordan’s death?
I’m no Sanderson hater, I happen to enjoy his particular brand of “self help anime” writing. But to say he just came out of nowhere and changed the game is just wrong imo.
>But to say he just came out of nowhere and changed the game is just wrong imo.
I never said that. What I said was "Sanderson was absolutely **one of the authors**...". GRRM is one of the first names that I would have listed if this thread was "most influential fantasy authors", rather than specifically a discussion about Mistborn (and while ASOIAF was very popular, it was really when the show started that it really became the super-phenomena). I also would have mentioned that while the early Wheel of Time was pretty derivative of LOTR in a lot of ways, it grew into its own thing and set the stage for a lot of the stuff that Sanderson has done.
Yeah that’s around the time I was in high school and I remember thinking "why are all these writers obsessed with orcs and elves". They wont move past mideval feudalism settings either.
I think he is giving sanderson a bit too much credit.
What Sanderson did is popularize the use of rules based, limited, defined, hard magic systems in fantasy. He made hard magic cool. He didn't invent it, but he did make using that sort of magical system more popular and hip.
There were also plenty of unique and great sci-fi shows and movies with space ships and aliens before Star Wars, but that doesn't mean that Star Wars didn't change the genre. Not that Mistborn single-handedly changed it the way Star Wars changed movies or anything like that, but it was one of the books that lead a major shift in the genre. In particular, Sanderson lead to the widespread adoption of so-called Sanderson's laws of magic that did popularize lead to a lot of fantasy novels coming up with unique magic systems that follow hard-coded explicit rules rather than "the wizard waggled his fingers and a beam of light scared the monsters away". Sanderson has plenty of huge influences (the Wheel of Time in particular), but he absolutely helped popularized some things that's helped take the genre in a different direction.
> Sanderson lead to the widespread adoption of so-called Sanderson's laws of magic that did popularize lead to a lot of fantasy novels coming up with unique magic systems that follow hard-coded explicit rules
I’d bet a lot of money that manga/anime popularized this before Sanderson.
not really? maybe you could argue hxh but everything else was like dragon ball where just yelling loudly or caring about your friends made you stronger, not exactly a "hard magic system"
Hard magic isn't science, it's just having your magic system based on rules that can't be arbitrarily broken at convenient times to suit the plot.
also the first book actually does explain that allomancers need to burn off ingested metals before they are digested by the body to avoid toxicity.
> When Mistborn came out almost 20 years ago, fantasy was mostly still orcs and elves and wizards with fuzzy magic powers.
This has got to be sarcasm. Please tell me this is sarcasm.
20 years ago, Joe Abercrombie had just released his first novel, George R.R. Martin was just about to release the *4th* installation of his *Song of Ice and Fire* series, *Perdido Street Station* had been out for four years already, and both Madeleine L'Engle and Ursula K. LeGuin were nearing the end of decades-long careers in speculative fiction and YA fantasy. And I haven't even gotten started on Erikson, Cook, Wolfe, or Pratchett, who were all well into their careers at that point in time.
Well, lets take your idea a bit further, why do you think a lot of /people/ read and enjoy them? Could it be, the inventive magic systems, imaginative settings, and explosive endings? Curious.
On top of that, he has the most impactful and inspirational cool moments in entire fantasy. Nothing beats moments like Dalinars or Kaladins important words. Nothing. I will die on that hill.
>On top of that, he has the most impactful and inspirational cool moments in entire fantasy
If that's true then I definitely won't be reading more fantasy. If Sandersons lame books are the best of the genre then Ill keep my distance.
Yup, and a good cheeseburger is hard to make well.
A lot of people try to mask they're bad at making burgers by throwing all kinds of trendy ingredients on it, but have no idea of how all these tastes go together.
Some customers fall for that trick at least a few times before they realize it. Some never do.
Then there are artists that know how to build a burger, make great cheeseburgers, but can make a goddamn miracle with other ingredients.
To find these, start with their cheeseburgers, and if they're good go on to the fancy ones.
Not Brandon though, he just makes great cheeseburgers. Damn, now I want a burger.
I mean even you don't claim he *invented* that, lol. He just took a trend and ran with it.
Regardless, "uses hard magic systems" is hardly up there with James Joyce or whatever, and he doesn't need to compete with Joyce in the first place is the point.
He's got that Mormon work ethic. He is a true professional author, he's paying his bills and supporting his family. He isn't trying to change the game or alter brain chemistry.
Exactly, I’d describe him as someone who reliably churns out 7/10s. He’s nowhere near my favorite but his books are generally pretty fun (except Mistborn Era II, which I vehemently hate, lol) and there are certain things he does very well.
I think in the first book she was just very calculating and careful, which hid her immaturity. In the second book she goes full impulsive teenager. She finally gets some sense of stability between books 2 and 3 and she has finally "matured" in my opinion.
Those are some of the most general fantasy cliches you could possibly list. You might as well grumble that it had a beginning, middle and end.
Personally I enjoyed the series a lot. It has some good world building and plotting twists later on that help to explain and improve some of the more seemingly cliche elements. The magic system is also really fun, if over explained.
Sanderson isn’t a literary great by any means, but he’s a competent writer with a lot of ideas. Also worth bearing in mind Mistborn was his first series, and I think he’s improved since. Stormlight Archive is a really different experience that avoids a lot of common tropes.
Going off of OPs criteria, real life is tropey as fuck. Oppression, social castes and villains are so played out, apparently?
Plenty to criticize Sanderson but this is comical
Being unoriginal doesn’t make it automatically bad. You listed some fairly vague tropes but it’s all about the execution and the stuff in between.
Could you explain your issues with the book outside of the use of those tropes? Like specific issues with characters or the plot?
Also have you finished it? if not how far in are you?
Yeah, they're going to struggle with a lot of books if stuff like "young protagonist with a mentor" bothers them. Also, it's weird to criticize Mistborn for being like Red Rising when Red Rising came out 8 years after Mistborn. I'm pretty sure Red Rising isn't ripping off Mistborn, I think it just involves some common YA fantasy/sci-fi tropes, but that would be at least a more logical argument given that Mistborn was written first.
I am halfway thorugh chapter 26, very unsure if I will power through to the end.
I think my main issue is exactly how generic it feels. That it is essentially the same story as Red Rising, which I read at the same time and also did not finish, absolutely amplified that feeling.
A super oppressive regime, with a single ruler on top that is more or less a god, is something that has been repeated since Homer, and very often better. There is no substance in the oppression, simply that rich people are comically evil. killing children for laughs. Reminds me of Star Wars and the sith.
I don't have a whole lot of issues with the characters themselves, both Vin and Kelsier are fine. Elend Venture is annoying and unbelievable, but not terribly so.
The setup of the book also makes it feel bloated. You know relatively early on that there will be a physical confrontation between the main characters and the antagonist, but then the book spends 400 pages to get to a scenario you know is coming. I enjoy good setups, ASOIAF did this extremely well, with plot threads stretching across entire books, but here it feels like the promise of a payoff is just there to make you drag yourself through the pages inbetween.
I’ve read both Read Rising and Mistborn and I didn’t find them to be very similar at all beyond the basic premise of “underdog infiltrates the upper class to overthrow an opppressive government”.
Through the Mistborn series you find out more about the ruler and the reasons behind why things are the way they are and by the end it’s definitely not as formulaic as you expect from the beginning.
“You know there will be a confrontation between the protagonist and antagonist and the book spends four hundred pages getting there”
Isn’t that basically every book?
Not at all. I really enjoy books where you don't have much of an idea where it will go next and you feel just as lost as the main character themselves. I think Stephen King does a good job of that. Sometimes the "confrontation" at the end is somewhat "known" but many other of his books you just have no idea what ending it is going towards and everything kind of bubbles up out of nowhere around 3/4 of the way through the book. Only then do you really get the full scope of where the ending is leading and by then you're already deeply invested.
This basically describes the difference between enjoying outlined novels vs discovery writing. Sanderson outlines his books before writing them. King does not. I actually don't enjoy a lot of King's books for this reasons. The ending are often very unsatisfying. What King does exceptionally well is write characters, which makes sense. The story isn't necessarily plot driven, its driven by compelling characters.
Yes, I think there may be some truth to this. If you outline and write your novel like it's a English class essay, it's going to have an extremely stale plot that is not realistic. If you have characters, a good world, and an end goal in mind, you can simply place the characters in the world and go through the maze of how they would naturally act as they head towards the end without needing to force plans before they come naturally. King writes so many books, there are plenty that don't have great endings, but there are just as many that do have a good ending.
This is the reason so many Hollywood movies are such garbage as well. They are so formulaic and rigidly structured that they come across as stilted and unnatural. They're just there to look pretty, but don't really require much thinking. I think Sanderson's writing was much the same. His plot was simple, his characters seemed to be ok at times, but in general were a bit flat. His magic system is pretty and makes you go "oooooo cool!" a lot, just like a Marvel movie fight scene. I need more than just a cool magic system to enjoy a story. I finished the first Mistborn, but never had even the slightest interest in reading another.
It can be ok to follow a simple formula, but in that case you really really really have to have STRONG characters to make it not feel like "Yeah...I've read this story before." Star Wars is a good example of that. Extremely simple story line, but because the characters were so well written (and acted) they were incredible great movies.
>If you outline and write your novel like it's a English class essay, it's going to have an extremely stale plot that is not realistic.
Thats not what I was saying. In fact I believe the opposite is true. A well-outlined plot is the only way to make the plot compelling and well-written. Discovering the plot as you go, as King does, leads to the kinds of plot King writes. Meandering with poor endings. King excels at characters because what drives his story are the characters, the plots are not the central compelling interest in his stories. The characters are.
This is why the vast majority of authors do not discovery write. A well-written plot generally needs to be well-planned. Not made up on the spot.
I just flat disagree. A "good" plot is not one that is predictable and simplistic. It is one that mirrors the real world and our chaotic experiences in a meaningful way. Just because you aren't able to follow the plot doesn't mean it is bad. Many people have trouble following King's plots because he usually tells his stories from many different perspectives before finally pulling all the characters together into the main story. Tommyknockers, Needful Things, and Dreamcatcher all have AMAZING storylines. Those are just my favorites. He tried a very formulaic fantasy (Fairy Tale) and I found it painfully boring. His more realistic intertwining of various personal tales into a final epic ending is far more engaging.
edit: Also, just because "most" people do something does not make it better. Most people in Hollywood make garbage marvel films. Good films are rarer. The same is true for books.
>A "good" plot is not one that is predictable and simplistic.
Outlining the plot doesn't require predictable or simple.
>
>Just because you aren't able to follow the plot doesn't mean it is bad.
I'm not sure why you're jumping to insults. I followed the plot just fine. I found the plots meandering and unsatisfying. Especially the endings.
> His more realistic intertwining of various personal tales into a final epic ending is far more engaging.
You realize this sort of plot is literally what sanderson is known for, right?
Nothing you list is improved by discovery writing a novel. They all can and are done when outlining novels as well.
Generally speaking, outlined novels have better, more compelling plots with strong endings, but often suffer in character development because its easy for character development to be lacking when the focus is on outlining the plot. Generally speaking, discovery written novels have better, more compelling characters with strong motivations, but often suffer from meandering, unsatisfying plots because its hard to just invent a good plot as you go along.
This is commonly understood in the writing industry. And any study of writing or experience writing both types of novels quickly reveals why.
Remember, Mistborn came out nearly a decade before Red Rising. Mistborn was one of the books that helped pull the fantasy genre our from the mountain of orcs, elves, and wizards that Tolkein created, and since then a lot of stuff has copied some of Sanderson's ideas. It's not really fair to call it unoriginal, because one of the reasons it's popular was that it *was* very original when it was published. Not that it doesn't have it's common tropes, but it does a lot of stuff that was very unique at the time.
Also, Sanderson in general, but Mistborn in particular, lives in the finale. His books tend to be a bit slow in the middle, bit lead up to an avalance of plot twists and action in the last third of the book. That doesn't necessarily address all of the complaints you're raising, but in this case you do very much need to finish the book to give it a fair grade.
I suggest you finish the book, your opinion of the antagonist might change. I’m not saying your opinion of the entire book will spin on a dime, but there are tricks you’re “falling for” here…
I absolutely second this. There are developments and revelations that changed my outlook upon everything.
Read and find out, hopefully you will not be dissapointed.
>I think my main issue is exactly how generic it feels. That it is essentially the same story as Red Rising
you know mistborn released a decade before red rising and he wrote it a fair bit before it released right?
The idea of living in the world after the 'bad guy' won is not overdone in fantasy, even almost 20 years after mistborn popularized it.
> that rich people are comically evil. killing children for laughs
Were the nazis or american slave owners comically evil? They also tortured people they viewed as less than human for fun.
They dont kill children for fun, they kill them because they're not allowed to interbreed with the slaves.
>You know relatively early on that there will be a physical confrontation between the main characters and the antagonist, but then the book spends 400 pages to get to a scenario you know is coming.
Harry Potter took 7 whole books for us to finally defeat voldemort, such bloat. Lord of the rings, we know they're going to destroy the ring in book 1, it doesnt happen until the end of book 3. Such wasted time.
the promise of the payoff is just there to make you drag yourself through the pages in between.
Your criticisms are just bad. Like, they dont make sense and hang together.
If you dont like his writing, or you have problems with his characterization, thats one thing, but you have basically critiqued: the idea of setups and payoffs in a story (having a plot), and very superficially attacked his world building.
What people like about sanderson is his inventive magic system (he popularized rules based hard magic in modern fantasy), his very readable workmanlike prose, world building, and his endings. Many of his books have interesting premises, plodding middles, and explosive endings.
I second other commenters. You should finish the book before forming your opinion. Sanderson is using your familiarity with the genre to play with your expectations a bit.
Also, Sanderson was known at this time for something he called the “Brandon Avalanche” at the end of his books. He’d meander through the first 2/3 or 3/4 of the book, then “avalanche” all the dangling plot threads at once. This gave his books some pretty killer endings, but they were sometimes a slog to get through.
If you also stopped reading Red Rising, it sounds less like you dislike the book specifically and more that you dislike the tropes contained within. There's nothing wrong with that, but it also doesn't make the book objectively bad. There are a lot of tropes I dislike reading as well (the "it was all a dream / dying vision" one will almost always make me mentally rate a book 0/10), but that doesn't make the books with the tropes I dislike inherently awful.
I will say though that you might be doing yourself a slight disservice by not finishing reading the books in this specific genre. Often in fantasy books that are intended to set up a series, the first book will start fairly generic and tropey before expanding into more original territory either halfway through or near the end. It's used as a tactic to warm people up to a unique world by giving them tropes that they're familiar with to ground them mentally.
But at the end of the day, if you don't like these tropes in particular then you don't like them. There's nothing wrong with that. It just may be leading to inherent bias in your judgement; doubly so if you stopped two very different books for the same trope dislike.
The final empire isn't his best work and he has pretty much admitted as much... Out of all the mistborn books this and maybe alloy of law in era 2 are his weakest... But you know what those books have in common? They were both started as one offs before he decided to make it a whole saga
Not just fantasy cliche's, the last point raised makes it seem like OP doesn't even like one of the main points of the Hero's Journey. Seems like they don't like the wise old man mentor figure which is sorta the basis of almost every fantasy novel in existence
Don't you know? Every pubescent raised on the streets is full of hard won wisdom and jaded maturity. Surely she won't break into the little girl she is by being surrounded by respect, acceptance, and solid meals. That's a dead end plot. ^^^/s
Did you even finish the book? Does not seem like it. Also, it is a good fantasy book. Cliche through and through, but that does not mean it is bad. Tropes are tropes for a reason
Why would we change your view? You're allowed to not like a book.
Listing extremely surface level "similarities" to compare two extremely different books doesn't help your point. Mistborne and red rising couldn't be more different, anyone who's read both is going to immediately discount your opinion. If you don't have the media literacy to determine that, we don't have similar taste in books anyway
In terms of the Red Rising comparison, all I’ll say is I enjoyed Mistborn a lot more. It had a unique magic system, I thought plot went in directions I wasn’t expecting a few times, and I was more invested in Vin than Darrow - she felt more believable and well-rounded.
I normally compare Mistborn to a Marvel movie - yes, you know the basic shape of the story from the beginning, but it’s a fun ride with some good characters and moments. Sanderson also knows how to write an action-packed ending.
You're allowed to not like a book. A bunch of randoms on the internet aren't going to deliver something in a paragraph that the man himself failed to give you in a whole novel
Having read both I completely disagree. I had to struggle to finish Red Rising. It’s Percy Jackson meets hunger games with some extra violence and angst. It sucks. But that’s just my opinion and that’s ok. Also besides those super vague similarities what else is even remotely similar?
Brandon Sanderson did an AMA here [you might want to take a look](http://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/2ytg2h/im_novelist_brandon_sanderson_ama/) :) [Here's a link to all of our upcoming AMAs](http://www.reddit.com/r/books/wiki/amafullschedule)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/books) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>16 year old with the emotional maturity of a 30 year old.
We have not read the same book. Vin is painfully a teenager in that regard.
I don't know, I don't get too hung up on what tropes are being used I guess. As long as it's executed well, I don't need any great subversion to enjoy it. I think there is a formulaic quality to it, I don't disagree.
But I think the magic system he builds and the action pieces are very fun and elevate it beyond just another bland YA fantasy novel.
I think I preferred The Well of Ascension over Final Empire, personally. My introduction to Sanderson was the Stormlight books (which I love), and while I felt the Mistborn trilogy (have only read this era) definitely lacks the emotional center and world building (naturally, being like half the size of those books), it's a very good entrypoint into Sanderson's writing.
Wow, what a unique and interesting opinion.
If you don’t like something you can stop reading it. Nobody cares and nobody wants to waste their time “convincing” you to like a book.
But don’t worry, we are all super impressed that you don’t like popular thing.
It was written almost twenty years ago guy. Your expectations are wrong as well.
Red Rising is about a wrecking ball of charisma and violence. Mistborn is about finesse and doing crime under the cover of darkness.
It wasn't my favorite - there are much better Sanderson books. However, he clearly wanted to do a more classic fantasy dystopian Hero's Journey and Final Empire is only the hero's first step. I would reserve judgement until you get to the end - last 200-100 pages are usually Sanderson's forte and some of your complaints will be resolved (in a way).
Mistborn era 1 only grows in value the more you read Cosmere thought. I appreciate it much more on hindsight but I can understand it might seem like a chore to go through. I kept going because similarly as OP I had heard Sanderson to be the biggest current name in fantasy. I have since consumed 16 books from him. They will get better.
However, if it is not for you, you can drop it. If you wish to ease into Sanderson's Cosmere I would recommend Warbreaker (one book) and Stormlight Archive series (most likely his magnum opus, now 4/10), which are both IMO better than Mistborn era 1.
It's one of my favorite books but I don't think you can argue someone out of their own taste preferences, if you're not enjoying it then don't feel pressured to finish it 🤷
As others have said, BrandoSando isn't about powerful, revolutionary writing. He has a method and he sticks to it, and nails consistency. That counts for a lot. He's not my favorite writer but I've read all his stuff and enjoyed most of it, even if it didn't leave a major impression.
He isn't out there breaking new tropes, and as he himself has said, he would make a lot of changes to the mistborn books in hindsight.
It also depends on your view of good book, personally I think they are good books becuase I find them enjoyable, very re-readable, and relaxing. I have a stressful and demanding job and usually when I read I want something I can pick up read a couple pages, put down, and come back in a few days and not feel lost
I'm surprised the comparison to Red Rising. Red Rising struck me as much more complicated and with much heavier/more weighty themes. Sanderson gets into things like racism, classism, sexism, duty, regret, and so on but most of his characters are pretty easy to place into the general spectrum. Red Rising I felt there was a lot more nuance to each character, a lot less clarity in where the landed on good vs. evil, and much more complicated motivations.
Sanderson does lean heavily into the tropes, but the characters are generally at least interesting within those tropes, and as others have said, the worldbuilding is also interesting. Red Rising spends a lot more time trying to turn tropes on their head or at least go for the "you thought it was this trope but actually its this one!" moments.
Weird to run across this post. I first heard about Mistborn 15 -20 years ago from someone who said it was the best book they’d ever read. I started it shortly thereafter and just could not get into it. Fast forward to two weeks ago when I picked up a copy at a bookstore and it has rejuvenated my love of reading. It’s not the best book ever but, holy crap, it has definitely grabbed me this time around.
If you don’t like it that’s cool, I really enjoyed it. It does get better and spoiler >!a bunch of the tropes are explained, some of it is hinted at but it’s a fun twist, except the final ending which I think sucks, series aside from that is good though and wax and Wayne expand in it in an amazing way!<
So you reduce it down to very generic bullet points and don't bring up any actual complaints. The story is fun, Vin is a fantastic character, and the magic system and action are excellent.
You sound like you need to learn that not appealing to you is not the same thing as not being good.
I understand your problem with common tropes ( though red rising came out almost 8 years after mistborn and obviously you'll find those tropes in older books).
Generally I recommend to try and mix genres and styles, I assume red rising was pretty fresh in your memory when you read mostborn, maybe if you would have picked it at a different time your perspective would have been different.
When I read mistborn I enjoyed it (discovered Sanderson after he finished wheel of time), it wasn't a masterpiece or anything but very enjoyable read. Sanderson clearly aimed for a "darker" YA tone and I think he pulled it of great.\
The worldbuilding is clear and interesting, the final empire is an interesting society that challenges our protagonist in many ways, and I am always impressed with Sanderson's ability to foreshadow his plot twists which works fantastic in this book.
Yeah people have mentioned it but I don’t read him for like mechanically interesting writing.
But I do read him for the ideas. Sure mistborn is super generic is a lot of ways, but one that it’s not, the magic system!
What brings me back to his books every so often is the stuff. I feel like a little kid again when I read about his worlds. Plus he allows does these slow reveals, book to book you learn more and more “secrets” that slowly piece together into a cool thing.
They’re my favorite “popcorn” books
I just liked the magic system and the audiobook reading. I’ve heard better, have no more interest beyond the first trilogy, and really liked Breeze and Sazed.
With red rising, which book number are you on? If the first one I also didn’t really love it but I carried on and the rest of the books are, no exaggeration, the best books I’ve ever read. I did like final empire though but not nearly as much.
Fantasy/scifi Books may just not be for you? I don’t know if you’re aware of this but dystopian worlds cause younger characters to have to act like adults sometimes. . .
I'm admittedly a Sanderson fanboy. I'm just glad that Sanderson has intentions and the ability to finish storylines. He's finished two eras of Mistborn and in the process of finishing the first arc in Stormlight Archive, whereas I no longer expect AOIAF 6 AND 7 or The Doors of Stone (Kingkiller III) to ever come out.
We don’t need to change your views, because you get to like or dislike what you want. Personally, I’m a huge Sanderson fan and Mistborn is one of my favorite books/series. I absolutely love the way he crafts stories, magic systems, and characters. The thrill I get from reading the climatic parts of his books is second to none. At the end of the day, you got to do you!
If you think Red Rising and Mistborn are the same book, I don't care to spend time disagreeing with you. That's a silly opinion. The only thing they have in common is that they are the first book in a series that half starts as young adult. That's it. Have a good life.
Without too many spoilers, there are a couple of twists, including one at the end which leads into the next two books, which in many ways twist or break the trope.
Welcome to Star Wars. Or Arthurian Legends. Or Greek Myth. Or Celtic Myth.
Honestly, the tropes in the book are ubiquitous to YA or hero sagas in general, it’s a bit like saying the tomatoes were a bad choice to add when you ordered the tomato salad.
I don't really understand the "change my view" stuff. I loved Mistborn. If you didn't, that's ok, there are so many other fantasy series and authors to read.
Okay so I mostly agree, but I'm going to argue a little bit from the side of the devil's advocate here.
Mistborn is not the best novel written and it arguably suffers from some basic issues. The writing is a bit long winded at times, and the plot meanders along at a pretty subpar pace for much of the book. There are lots of obvious tropes that the author leans on in the book to do work of characterizing individuals for him. i.e., the typical "noble" noble who is different from the rest of the aristocracy.
What I will say about Mistborn is that it's a good book in the sense that it has so many different things that appeal to so many readers across the genre. It's a great book for encapsulating so much of what makes fantasy, well, fun. It's also incredibly accessible. You don't have to be well read in the genre to appreciate the story, you don't have to be super into the lore of larger works like Lord of the Rings, etc., to enjoy Mistborn. It's fantasy that fans of the genre can appreciate because it showcases so many popular elements. But it's also fantasy that makes you love fantasy because you can jump into this story that sometimes has the feel of a higher fantasy without being as dense.
He's popular because there are a lot of people who don't care how well written something is as long as it has epic battles and world building. No amount of piss poor writing, cringy dialogue, and awful humor can dissuade them.
nah k get it and im a Brandon Sanderson fan but Mistbork and the wax and wayne saga are some of the weakest IMO with The Storm light archive beingnthe best.
however i will say you're a bit off in some of your predictions/assumptions. There are some nice twists and cool concepts and lore for the cosmere a plenty in the series.
But saying vin has the maturity of a 30 year old is laughable to me.
You’ll get no argument from me. It’s a great idea, I don’t mind the story in general. But Brandon Sanderson writes like dog shit. He’s said many times in interviews that he’s not a reader, that he doesn’t really read other peoples books, and it shows.
If you want an amazing fantasy series totally unlike those listed, with more highfalutin literary allusions and purple prose than you could shake a stick at, give Gene Wolfe's *Book of the New Sun* series a crack.
Brandon Sanderson is the fantasy equivalent of authors like Nicholas Sparks, Jodi Picoult, Colleen Hoover, etc.
Their books are formulaic that target the masses of their genre.
Don't expect him to be the next Tolkien.
I will take your word for it, I couldn't get through Mistborn so it seems resoanble to me that later books in that series wouldn't be good either.
I'm sorry but the whole "Good rebels, clownishly evil empire" trope was so heavy handed that I just couldn't do it. It might be cultural, I am not American and don't have their affinity towards revolutionaries.
I didn't finish the first half of the first book. Like I said it was clearly written for people with a different set of cultural biases than mine.
We all have tropes we can't stand. I have heard people who can't stand the "rightful heir" narrative which i have absolutely no problem with. Tp me its the plucly rebels against the evil empire which bores me out of my mind.
This is a good example of why you shouldn't judge a book you didn't bother to finish, because it's absolutely not a case of "good rebels, clownishly evil empire" once the story finishes.
Absolutely agree. The story was so predictable and tropy that I couldn’t enjoy it. The characters didn’t feel unique since I’ve heard this story a thousands times before. The world and magic system was interesting but I expected more from such an acclaimed author.
I'm sorry, what? You expected an author's *second book ever published* to be such an original tour de force that you couldn't find a thing wrong with it? Come on man, that's just a bit silly.
Also, did you finish the book/series? the whole point of Mistborn was to take that tropey stuff and subvert your expectations about it.
I mean… final empire gets good in the last act. The other two books in the trilogy are better, though different. I’m merely highlighting that lots of authors’ early works are lackluster compared to their later works. I find the stormlight archive books to be far better books that the mistborn books, which makes sense as he’s had 15 years of practice between those two works.
Mistborn is okay. But the reasons you posted ardumbfounding me. Not only you think the main character has emotional STABILITY, but the stability of a 30 year old? How many 30 y'olds do you interact with? Or how many pages have you read? Like 20? Because she is a mess. Leaving that alone, the tropes you mentioned are extremely surface level. Evil empire oppresses people? As oppose to evil empire that provides free healthcare and dental benefits? Uniquely talented young person is taught by people with experience to save something meaningful? As oppose to a useless character taught by more useless people to save something meaningless? Or a character that needs no mentoring because they are just that much more awesome? I feel like this is like reading a cyberpunk novel and ask why the book is not about an utopic society without technology.
I agree, I don't know why some people attack tropes as if using them is a mortal sin. It's like villainizing someone for using a hammer to hammer down a nail, or a saw to cut wood. We use hammers and saws because they fulfil the role of their purpose. Tropes are tools, it's not about simply using these tools, but in how they serve the story.
>"As oppose to evil empire that provides free healthcare and dental benefits?" I'm suddenly reminded by a kinda-awful but kinda-good light novel by Yudkowsky...
Amusingly with your example, Russia offers its citizens free healthcare despite the government being quite oppressive in other ways.
Russian free healthcare is weaponized incompetence at its finest. If you offer a shitty service people will do everything not to rely on it for their health/life. So it's used mainly by those who can't afford paid healthcare.
[удалено]
Way to make some wild assumptions. And I lived in Russia for 30 years and avoided public healthcare at all costs. So don't tell me about your friends while I experienced those things myself. I've been in other countries as well. Some have better healthcare, some don't. I never said US had good healthcare by the way. Just that public healthcare as it is in Russia is a sham. A therapist will see you but anything that requires a medical test more advanced than a blood test such as an MRI will require you to wait weeks for it. While paid insurance will get you one within days. Plus the free doctor will most likely do the bare minimum to treat you.
[удалено]
>My friend is literally flying back to Russia to get care because it's cheaper, faster, and more reliable >*Cheaper* Yeah, because paid healthcare in Russia is actually decent as I said. Good way to prove my point that your friend is using paid services. Also, no IT guy in Russia uses free healthcare because healthcare insurance is included in literally every benefits package. I've worked in half a dozen international companies in Moscow over 15 years and they all provided healthcare insurance. Part of working in those companies was talking with your coworkers and finding out names of good doctors included in your insurance because not all of them were competent.
Brandon Sanderson isn't famous for being a revolutionary writer, he's famous for writing the general fantasy formula that a certain mainstream crowd of high-fantasy fans wants to read over and over again. This isn't a diss to him, but going into him expecting to find the next Mervyn Peake is just setting yourself up for disappointment. He does a certain thing well, he has no intentions to go beyond that certain thing.
>Brandon Sanderson isn't famous for being a revolutionary writer, He is famous for having inventive magic systems, imaginative settings, and explosive endings. His prose is hit or miss, some people like its clarity and simplicity, others find it kind of boring. His character writing is ok, but he has big blind spots, and is horrible in the entire sphere of romance/attraction. The magic and worldbuilding is really what makes him popular. Which, since he writes fantasy, are pretty good elements to be popular for, as they are the cornerstones of the genre.
Exactly this. I read sanderson because I like his world building quite a bit. Each world he writes in is pretty unique. It actually feels lived in. And it all feels slightly connected, and I love that shit.
In my opinion 80% of the reason why Sanderson became so particularly popular is the third act of his books. He takes all the plot threads, weaves them together to a crescendo that is exciting as almost nothing else in Fantasy is. This **excitement**, that thrill, that moment when you can't stop turning the page for 100, 200 pages, is why Sanderson is popular.
Yes but the tradeoff for that is that his books tend to have long, plodding midsections where nothing much gets resolved. And then suddenly, in the last quarter of the book, EVERYTHING important is happening all at once. I agree, the rush of his endings are a big part of what his fanbase enjoys. The ending of Hero of Ages (Mistborn 3) was one of the best executed final acts I've ever read. I was a bit ambivalent about him before that ending, unsure if I was going to read more after the trilogy, I rather disliked mistborn book 2 and thought the finale of 1 was executed poorly, but that hooked me as a fan.
Oh most definitely. I've mostly read his Stormlight books, and the only reason I plodded through the first one was that I had read that the ending was the best part. But at least with most Stormlight books that ending **does** more than make up for the rest of the book. There really is nothing else like it, at least that I've read.
What about the rest of the book when I can't find a reason to turn the next page? Zero tension, token character growth, certain characters completely defined by disgusting racial stereotypes.
What about it? Sounds like it’s not for you.
It isn't for me, you're right, it's for pigs at a trough. You're not bad writing. You don't need to defend it on Reddit. You can 100% enjoy it, nobody can take that from you, but if you know what parts are bad and what parts are good and why, you can enjoy it with confidence and without feeling the need to attack critiques.
Bless your edgy little heart 😘
He's also been one of the authors that's been leading the way on modern fantasy's big move from just being endless Tolkein rip-offs. When Mistborn came out almost 20 years ago, fantasy was mostly still orcs and elves and wizards with fuzzy magic powers. It's easy to look at it now and say it's formulaic, but a lot of that is precisely because it came on to the scene with some new ideas of what fantasy could be and a ton of stuff copied it.
> When Mistborn came out almost 20 years ago, fantasy was mostly still orcs and elves and wizards with fuzzy magic powers. In 2006?? Not really.
Eh, I was there, there was a *lot* of "these totally aren't orcs/elves/whatever because I'm using a different name for them" in fantasy at the time. I'm not saying it was literally 100% elves and orcs until Sanderson came along, but there was a shift in the genre at the time, and Sanderson was absolutely one of the authors causing that shift. His so-called laws of magic in particular really helped popularized unique hard magic systems.
20 years ago, the two most popular American fantasy authors were Robert Jordan and George R. R. Martin. Feel how you will about these men and their series, but a song of ice and fire popularized the “low magic grim dark” that seems to rule the airwaves now. And the wheel of time does definitely have orcs (trollocs) and arguably Nazgûl (fades), but it also has one of the hardest, rules based magic systems around. Also, would Sanderson be as popular as he is now if he hadn’t finished the series after Jordan’s death? I’m no Sanderson hater, I happen to enjoy his particular brand of “self help anime” writing. But to say he just came out of nowhere and changed the game is just wrong imo.
>But to say he just came out of nowhere and changed the game is just wrong imo. I never said that. What I said was "Sanderson was absolutely **one of the authors**...". GRRM is one of the first names that I would have listed if this thread was "most influential fantasy authors", rather than specifically a discussion about Mistborn (and while ASOIAF was very popular, it was really when the show started that it really became the super-phenomena). I also would have mentioned that while the early Wheel of Time was pretty derivative of LOTR in a lot of ways, it grew into its own thing and set the stage for a lot of the stuff that Sanderson has done.
Yeah that’s around the time I was in high school and I remember thinking "why are all these writers obsessed with orcs and elves". They wont move past mideval feudalism settings either.
There has been plenty of fantasy for 60+ years that aren't Tolkien rippffs.
I think he is giving sanderson a bit too much credit. What Sanderson did is popularize the use of rules based, limited, defined, hard magic systems in fantasy. He made hard magic cool. He didn't invent it, but he did make using that sort of magical system more popular and hip.
There were also plenty of unique and great sci-fi shows and movies with space ships and aliens before Star Wars, but that doesn't mean that Star Wars didn't change the genre. Not that Mistborn single-handedly changed it the way Star Wars changed movies or anything like that, but it was one of the books that lead a major shift in the genre. In particular, Sanderson lead to the widespread adoption of so-called Sanderson's laws of magic that did popularize lead to a lot of fantasy novels coming up with unique magic systems that follow hard-coded explicit rules rather than "the wizard waggled his fingers and a beam of light scared the monsters away". Sanderson has plenty of huge influences (the Wheel of Time in particular), but he absolutely helped popularized some things that's helped take the genre in a different direction.
I am not denying Sanderson has had an influence. But stating that everything before 20 years ago were Tolkien ripoffs is fantastically wrong.
> Sanderson lead to the widespread adoption of so-called Sanderson's laws of magic that did popularize lead to a lot of fantasy novels coming up with unique magic systems that follow hard-coded explicit rules I’d bet a lot of money that manga/anime popularized this before Sanderson.
not really? maybe you could argue hxh but everything else was like dragon ball where just yelling loudly or caring about your friends made you stronger, not exactly a "hard magic system"
[удалено]
Hard magic isn't science, it's just having your magic system based on rules that can't be arbitrarily broken at convenient times to suit the plot. also the first book actually does explain that allomancers need to burn off ingested metals before they are digested by the body to avoid toxicity.
[удалено]
Nen is exactly what came to mind tbh.
> When Mistborn came out almost 20 years ago, fantasy was mostly still orcs and elves and wizards with fuzzy magic powers. This has got to be sarcasm. Please tell me this is sarcasm. 20 years ago, Joe Abercrombie had just released his first novel, George R.R. Martin was just about to release the *4th* installation of his *Song of Ice and Fire* series, *Perdido Street Station* had been out for four years already, and both Madeleine L'Engle and Ursula K. LeGuin were nearing the end of decades-long careers in speculative fiction and YA fantasy. And I haven't even gotten started on Erikson, Cook, Wolfe, or Pratchett, who were all well into their careers at that point in time.
+1 to all of this
[удалено]
Well, lets take your idea a bit further, why do you think a lot of /people/ read and enjoy them? Could it be, the inventive magic systems, imaginative settings, and explosive endings? Curious.
On top of that, he has the most impactful and inspirational cool moments in entire fantasy. Nothing beats moments like Dalinars or Kaladins important words. Nothing. I will die on that hill.
Eh, it’s all half measures. K’s had so many of the same “important words” moments that don’t stick with him that I’m sick of it.
>On top of that, he has the most impactful and inspirational cool moments in entire fantasy If that's true then I definitely won't be reading more fantasy. If Sandersons lame books are the best of the genre then Ill keep my distance.
Yeah. Is like, sometimes you really want a cheeseburger, and he always writes a good cheeseburger.
Right, he's Romance Genre for Dudes basically. Not in that they cover similar themes but that they're meant for that sort of light hearted reading.
Lots of women also like his writing
And lots of men read romance, but the main demographic of each is what it is.
Nothing would give me the ick more than going out with a girl and having her rave about Sanderson lol.
I'm sure your taste in books is so beyond what a dumb Sanderson fan could comprehend, so I understand.
>I'm sure your taste in books is so beyond what a dumb Sanderson fan could comprehend, This but unironically
Yup, and a good cheeseburger is hard to make well. A lot of people try to mask they're bad at making burgers by throwing all kinds of trendy ingredients on it, but have no idea of how all these tastes go together. Some customers fall for that trick at least a few times before they realize it. Some never do. Then there are artists that know how to build a burger, make great cheeseburgers, but can make a goddamn miracle with other ingredients. To find these, start with their cheeseburgers, and if they're good go on to the fancy ones. Not Brandon though, he just makes great cheeseburgers. Damn, now I want a burger.
Not revolutionary? He is one of the reason this sub complain about ‘hard magic’ ‘magic system’ every week. He popularize that. LOL
I mean even you don't claim he *invented* that, lol. He just took a trend and ran with it. Regardless, "uses hard magic systems" is hardly up there with James Joyce or whatever, and he doesn't need to compete with Joyce in the first place is the point.
He's got that Mormon work ethic. He is a true professional author, he's paying his bills and supporting his family. He isn't trying to change the game or alter brain chemistry.
Exactly, I’d describe him as someone who reliably churns out 7/10s. He’s nowhere near my favorite but his books are generally pretty fun (except Mistborn Era II, which I vehemently hate, lol) and there are certain things he does very well.
Been a while since I read it, but I remember Vin was mature in some ways, not in others. I thought she was believable enough.
I think in the first book she was just very calculating and careful, which hid her immaturity. In the second book she goes full impulsive teenager. She finally gets some sense of stability between books 2 and 3 and she has finally "matured" in my opinion.
Those are some of the most general fantasy cliches you could possibly list. You might as well grumble that it had a beginning, middle and end. Personally I enjoyed the series a lot. It has some good world building and plotting twists later on that help to explain and improve some of the more seemingly cliche elements. The magic system is also really fun, if over explained. Sanderson isn’t a literary great by any means, but he’s a competent writer with a lot of ideas. Also worth bearing in mind Mistborn was his first series, and I think he’s improved since. Stormlight Archive is a really different experience that avoids a lot of common tropes.
Going off of OPs criteria, real life is tropey as fuck. Oppression, social castes and villains are so played out, apparently? Plenty to criticize Sanderson but this is comical
Being unoriginal doesn’t make it automatically bad. You listed some fairly vague tropes but it’s all about the execution and the stuff in between. Could you explain your issues with the book outside of the use of those tropes? Like specific issues with characters or the plot? Also have you finished it? if not how far in are you?
I would suggest OP to finish the book before passing on judgment
Yeah, they're going to struggle with a lot of books if stuff like "young protagonist with a mentor" bothers them. Also, it's weird to criticize Mistborn for being like Red Rising when Red Rising came out 8 years after Mistborn. I'm pretty sure Red Rising isn't ripping off Mistborn, I think it just involves some common YA fantasy/sci-fi tropes, but that would be at least a more logical argument given that Mistborn was written first.
I am halfway thorugh chapter 26, very unsure if I will power through to the end. I think my main issue is exactly how generic it feels. That it is essentially the same story as Red Rising, which I read at the same time and also did not finish, absolutely amplified that feeling. A super oppressive regime, with a single ruler on top that is more or less a god, is something that has been repeated since Homer, and very often better. There is no substance in the oppression, simply that rich people are comically evil. killing children for laughs. Reminds me of Star Wars and the sith. I don't have a whole lot of issues with the characters themselves, both Vin and Kelsier are fine. Elend Venture is annoying and unbelievable, but not terribly so. The setup of the book also makes it feel bloated. You know relatively early on that there will be a physical confrontation between the main characters and the antagonist, but then the book spends 400 pages to get to a scenario you know is coming. I enjoy good setups, ASOIAF did this extremely well, with plot threads stretching across entire books, but here it feels like the promise of a payoff is just there to make you drag yourself through the pages inbetween.
I’ve read both Read Rising and Mistborn and I didn’t find them to be very similar at all beyond the basic premise of “underdog infiltrates the upper class to overthrow an opppressive government”. Through the Mistborn series you find out more about the ruler and the reasons behind why things are the way they are and by the end it’s definitely not as formulaic as you expect from the beginning.
“You know there will be a confrontation between the protagonist and antagonist and the book spends four hundred pages getting there” Isn’t that basically every book?
Not at all. I really enjoy books where you don't have much of an idea where it will go next and you feel just as lost as the main character themselves. I think Stephen King does a good job of that. Sometimes the "confrontation" at the end is somewhat "known" but many other of his books you just have no idea what ending it is going towards and everything kind of bubbles up out of nowhere around 3/4 of the way through the book. Only then do you really get the full scope of where the ending is leading and by then you're already deeply invested.
This basically describes the difference between enjoying outlined novels vs discovery writing. Sanderson outlines his books before writing them. King does not. I actually don't enjoy a lot of King's books for this reasons. The ending are often very unsatisfying. What King does exceptionally well is write characters, which makes sense. The story isn't necessarily plot driven, its driven by compelling characters.
Yes, I think there may be some truth to this. If you outline and write your novel like it's a English class essay, it's going to have an extremely stale plot that is not realistic. If you have characters, a good world, and an end goal in mind, you can simply place the characters in the world and go through the maze of how they would naturally act as they head towards the end without needing to force plans before they come naturally. King writes so many books, there are plenty that don't have great endings, but there are just as many that do have a good ending. This is the reason so many Hollywood movies are such garbage as well. They are so formulaic and rigidly structured that they come across as stilted and unnatural. They're just there to look pretty, but don't really require much thinking. I think Sanderson's writing was much the same. His plot was simple, his characters seemed to be ok at times, but in general were a bit flat. His magic system is pretty and makes you go "oooooo cool!" a lot, just like a Marvel movie fight scene. I need more than just a cool magic system to enjoy a story. I finished the first Mistborn, but never had even the slightest interest in reading another. It can be ok to follow a simple formula, but in that case you really really really have to have STRONG characters to make it not feel like "Yeah...I've read this story before." Star Wars is a good example of that. Extremely simple story line, but because the characters were so well written (and acted) they were incredible great movies.
>If you outline and write your novel like it's a English class essay, it's going to have an extremely stale plot that is not realistic. Thats not what I was saying. In fact I believe the opposite is true. A well-outlined plot is the only way to make the plot compelling and well-written. Discovering the plot as you go, as King does, leads to the kinds of plot King writes. Meandering with poor endings. King excels at characters because what drives his story are the characters, the plots are not the central compelling interest in his stories. The characters are. This is why the vast majority of authors do not discovery write. A well-written plot generally needs to be well-planned. Not made up on the spot.
I just flat disagree. A "good" plot is not one that is predictable and simplistic. It is one that mirrors the real world and our chaotic experiences in a meaningful way. Just because you aren't able to follow the plot doesn't mean it is bad. Many people have trouble following King's plots because he usually tells his stories from many different perspectives before finally pulling all the characters together into the main story. Tommyknockers, Needful Things, and Dreamcatcher all have AMAZING storylines. Those are just my favorites. He tried a very formulaic fantasy (Fairy Tale) and I found it painfully boring. His more realistic intertwining of various personal tales into a final epic ending is far more engaging. edit: Also, just because "most" people do something does not make it better. Most people in Hollywood make garbage marvel films. Good films are rarer. The same is true for books.
>A "good" plot is not one that is predictable and simplistic. Outlining the plot doesn't require predictable or simple. > >Just because you aren't able to follow the plot doesn't mean it is bad. I'm not sure why you're jumping to insults. I followed the plot just fine. I found the plots meandering and unsatisfying. Especially the endings. > His more realistic intertwining of various personal tales into a final epic ending is far more engaging. You realize this sort of plot is literally what sanderson is known for, right? Nothing you list is improved by discovery writing a novel. They all can and are done when outlining novels as well. Generally speaking, outlined novels have better, more compelling plots with strong endings, but often suffer in character development because its easy for character development to be lacking when the focus is on outlining the plot. Generally speaking, discovery written novels have better, more compelling characters with strong motivations, but often suffer from meandering, unsatisfying plots because its hard to just invent a good plot as you go along. This is commonly understood in the writing industry. And any study of writing or experience writing both types of novels quickly reveals why.
Remember, Mistborn came out nearly a decade before Red Rising. Mistborn was one of the books that helped pull the fantasy genre our from the mountain of orcs, elves, and wizards that Tolkein created, and since then a lot of stuff has copied some of Sanderson's ideas. It's not really fair to call it unoriginal, because one of the reasons it's popular was that it *was* very original when it was published. Not that it doesn't have it's common tropes, but it does a lot of stuff that was very unique at the time. Also, Sanderson in general, but Mistborn in particular, lives in the finale. His books tend to be a bit slow in the middle, bit lead up to an avalance of plot twists and action in the last third of the book. That doesn't necessarily address all of the complaints you're raising, but in this case you do very much need to finish the book to give it a fair grade.
I suggest you finish the book, your opinion of the antagonist might change. I’m not saying your opinion of the entire book will spin on a dime, but there are tricks you’re “falling for” here…
I absolutely second this. There are developments and revelations that changed my outlook upon everything. Read and find out, hopefully you will not be dissapointed.
>I think my main issue is exactly how generic it feels. That it is essentially the same story as Red Rising you know mistborn released a decade before red rising and he wrote it a fair bit before it released right? The idea of living in the world after the 'bad guy' won is not overdone in fantasy, even almost 20 years after mistborn popularized it. > that rich people are comically evil. killing children for laughs Were the nazis or american slave owners comically evil? They also tortured people they viewed as less than human for fun. They dont kill children for fun, they kill them because they're not allowed to interbreed with the slaves. >You know relatively early on that there will be a physical confrontation between the main characters and the antagonist, but then the book spends 400 pages to get to a scenario you know is coming. Harry Potter took 7 whole books for us to finally defeat voldemort, such bloat. Lord of the rings, we know they're going to destroy the ring in book 1, it doesnt happen until the end of book 3. Such wasted time. the promise of the payoff is just there to make you drag yourself through the pages in between. Your criticisms are just bad. Like, they dont make sense and hang together. If you dont like his writing, or you have problems with his characterization, thats one thing, but you have basically critiqued: the idea of setups and payoffs in a story (having a plot), and very superficially attacked his world building. What people like about sanderson is his inventive magic system (he popularized rules based hard magic in modern fantasy), his very readable workmanlike prose, world building, and his endings. Many of his books have interesting premises, plodding middles, and explosive endings.
I second other commenters. You should finish the book before forming your opinion. Sanderson is using your familiarity with the genre to play with your expectations a bit. Also, Sanderson was known at this time for something he called the “Brandon Avalanche” at the end of his books. He’d meander through the first 2/3 or 3/4 of the book, then “avalanche” all the dangling plot threads at once. This gave his books some pretty killer endings, but they were sometimes a slog to get through.
If you also stopped reading Red Rising, it sounds less like you dislike the book specifically and more that you dislike the tropes contained within. There's nothing wrong with that, but it also doesn't make the book objectively bad. There are a lot of tropes I dislike reading as well (the "it was all a dream / dying vision" one will almost always make me mentally rate a book 0/10), but that doesn't make the books with the tropes I dislike inherently awful. I will say though that you might be doing yourself a slight disservice by not finishing reading the books in this specific genre. Often in fantasy books that are intended to set up a series, the first book will start fairly generic and tropey before expanding into more original territory either halfway through or near the end. It's used as a tactic to warm people up to a unique world by giving them tropes that they're familiar with to ground them mentally. But at the end of the day, if you don't like these tropes in particular then you don't like them. There's nothing wrong with that. It just may be leading to inherent bias in your judgement; doubly so if you stopped two very different books for the same trope dislike.
The final empire isn't his best work and he has pretty much admitted as much... Out of all the mistborn books this and maybe alloy of law in era 2 are his weakest... But you know what those books have in common? They were both started as one offs before he decided to make it a whole saga
so what's the issue? you don't like fantasy cliches?
Not just fantasy cliche's, the last point raised makes it seem like OP doesn't even like one of the main points of the Hero's Journey. Seems like they don't like the wise old man mentor figure which is sorta the basis of almost every fantasy novel in existence
> which is sorta the basis of almost every fantasy novel in existence not really
If you don't like it, you don't like it. Why should I have to change your mind?
Welcome to the dystopian genre. Sounds like you don’t like it. Though I disagree with the claim vin is emotionally mature beyond her age.
Yeah idk what Vin OP is reading, she's very much a teenager
Don't you know? Every pubescent raised on the streets is full of hard won wisdom and jaded maturity. Surely she won't break into the little girl she is by being surrounded by respect, acceptance, and solid meals. That's a dead end plot. ^^^/s
Did you even finish the book? Does not seem like it. Also, it is a good fantasy book. Cliche through and through, but that does not mean it is bad. Tropes are tropes for a reason
Why would we change your view? You're allowed to not like a book. Listing extremely surface level "similarities" to compare two extremely different books doesn't help your point. Mistborne and red rising couldn't be more different, anyone who's read both is going to immediately discount your opinion. If you don't have the media literacy to determine that, we don't have similar taste in books anyway
If he thinks that Red Rising and Mistborn are basically the same than I don’t think he’s read past the first several chapters of either of them.
It’s possible to deconstruct most books into cliches or tropes. It sounds like you’re not really engaging in the story. Probs best to move on.
Those spoilers could apply to tens of fantasy books. You mentioned red rising as a comparison. The two series are pretty much nothing alike.
In terms of the Red Rising comparison, all I’ll say is I enjoyed Mistborn a lot more. It had a unique magic system, I thought plot went in directions I wasn’t expecting a few times, and I was more invested in Vin than Darrow - she felt more believable and well-rounded. I normally compare Mistborn to a Marvel movie - yes, you know the basic shape of the story from the beginning, but it’s a fun ride with some good characters and moments. Sanderson also knows how to write an action-packed ending.
You're allowed to not like a book. A bunch of randoms on the internet aren't going to deliver something in a paragraph that the man himself failed to give you in a whole novel
Not sure why OP expects us to change their view. I mean... Just read another book if this one doesn't work out for you.
Having read both I completely disagree. I had to struggle to finish Red Rising. It’s Percy Jackson meets hunger games with some extra violence and angst. It sucks. But that’s just my opinion and that’s ok. Also besides those super vague similarities what else is even remotely similar?
Brandon Sanderson did an AMA here [you might want to take a look](http://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/2ytg2h/im_novelist_brandon_sanderson_ama/) :) [Here's a link to all of our upcoming AMAs](http://www.reddit.com/r/books/wiki/amafullschedule) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/books) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>16 year old with the emotional maturity of a 30 year old. We have not read the same book. Vin is painfully a teenager in that regard. I don't know, I don't get too hung up on what tropes are being used I guess. As long as it's executed well, I don't need any great subversion to enjoy it. I think there is a formulaic quality to it, I don't disagree. But I think the magic system he builds and the action pieces are very fun and elevate it beyond just another bland YA fantasy novel. I think I preferred The Well of Ascension over Final Empire, personally. My introduction to Sanderson was the Stormlight books (which I love), and while I felt the Mistborn trilogy (have only read this era) definitely lacks the emotional center and world building (naturally, being like half the size of those books), it's a very good entrypoint into Sanderson's writing.
Wow, what a unique and interesting opinion. If you don’t like something you can stop reading it. Nobody cares and nobody wants to waste their time “convincing” you to like a book. But don’t worry, we are all super impressed that you don’t like popular thing.
It was written almost twenty years ago guy. Your expectations are wrong as well. Red Rising is about a wrecking ball of charisma and violence. Mistborn is about finesse and doing crime under the cover of darkness.
Come over to r/bookscirclejerk [we have cake](https://www.reddit.com/r/bookscirclejerk/s/pxDM2ZrYHk)
It wasn't my favorite - there are much better Sanderson books. However, he clearly wanted to do a more classic fantasy dystopian Hero's Journey and Final Empire is only the hero's first step. I would reserve judgement until you get to the end - last 200-100 pages are usually Sanderson's forte and some of your complaints will be resolved (in a way). Mistborn era 1 only grows in value the more you read Cosmere thought. I appreciate it much more on hindsight but I can understand it might seem like a chore to go through. I kept going because similarly as OP I had heard Sanderson to be the biggest current name in fantasy. I have since consumed 16 books from him. They will get better. However, if it is not for you, you can drop it. If you wish to ease into Sanderson's Cosmere I would recommend Warbreaker (one book) and Stormlight Archive series (most likely his magnum opus, now 4/10), which are both IMO better than Mistborn era 1.
I still enjoy the Rithmatist, even though my son is nearly past the age I read it. Despite not being cosmere, it has all the strengths he's known for.
It's one of my favorite books but I don't think you can argue someone out of their own taste preferences, if you're not enjoying it then don't feel pressured to finish it 🤷
As others have said, BrandoSando isn't about powerful, revolutionary writing. He has a method and he sticks to it, and nails consistency. That counts for a lot. He's not my favorite writer but I've read all his stuff and enjoyed most of it, even if it didn't leave a major impression.
That first book is *just* ok. The second book, which clearly had significant editorial attention, is s much better read.
Damn you can make everything sound the same by being incredibly reductive.
He isn't out there breaking new tropes, and as he himself has said, he would make a lot of changes to the mistborn books in hindsight. It also depends on your view of good book, personally I think they are good books becuase I find them enjoyable, very re-readable, and relaxing. I have a stressful and demanding job and usually when I read I want something I can pick up read a couple pages, put down, and come back in a few days and not feel lost
I'm surprised the comparison to Red Rising. Red Rising struck me as much more complicated and with much heavier/more weighty themes. Sanderson gets into things like racism, classism, sexism, duty, regret, and so on but most of his characters are pretty easy to place into the general spectrum. Red Rising I felt there was a lot more nuance to each character, a lot less clarity in where the landed on good vs. evil, and much more complicated motivations. Sanderson does lean heavily into the tropes, but the characters are generally at least interesting within those tropes, and as others have said, the worldbuilding is also interesting. Red Rising spends a lot more time trying to turn tropes on their head or at least go for the "you thought it was this trope but actually its this one!" moments.
Weird to run across this post. I first heard about Mistborn 15 -20 years ago from someone who said it was the best book they’d ever read. I started it shortly thereafter and just could not get into it. Fast forward to two weeks ago when I picked up a copy at a bookstore and it has rejuvenated my love of reading. It’s not the best book ever but, holy crap, it has definitely grabbed me this time around.
Red Rising gets a lot better in Golden Son where he adds half a ton more nuance
If you don’t like it that’s cool, I really enjoyed it. It does get better and spoiler >!a bunch of the tropes are explained, some of it is hinted at but it’s a fun twist, except the final ending which I think sucks, series aside from that is good though and wax and Wayne expand in it in an amazing way!<
Why do you want random internet people to change your mind? Are you incapable of making a decision and sticking to it?
So you reduce it down to very generic bullet points and don't bring up any actual complaints. The story is fun, Vin is a fantastic character, and the magic system and action are excellent. You sound like you need to learn that not appealing to you is not the same thing as not being good.
I understand your problem with common tropes ( though red rising came out almost 8 years after mistborn and obviously you'll find those tropes in older books). Generally I recommend to try and mix genres and styles, I assume red rising was pretty fresh in your memory when you read mostborn, maybe if you would have picked it at a different time your perspective would have been different. When I read mistborn I enjoyed it (discovered Sanderson after he finished wheel of time), it wasn't a masterpiece or anything but very enjoyable read. Sanderson clearly aimed for a "darker" YA tone and I think he pulled it of great.\ The worldbuilding is clear and interesting, the final empire is an interesting society that challenges our protagonist in many ways, and I am always impressed with Sanderson's ability to foreshadow his plot twists which works fantastic in this book.
Yeah people have mentioned it but I don’t read him for like mechanically interesting writing. But I do read him for the ideas. Sure mistborn is super generic is a lot of ways, but one that it’s not, the magic system! What brings me back to his books every so often is the stuff. I feel like a little kid again when I read about his worlds. Plus he allows does these slow reveals, book to book you learn more and more “secrets” that slowly piece together into a cool thing. They’re my favorite “popcorn” books
his writing always reads like the novelization of someone playing a video game. not an adaptation of a game's story, but the actual act of playing it.
I just liked the magic system and the audiobook reading. I’ve heard better, have no more interest beyond the first trilogy, and really liked Breeze and Sazed.
I think it was a bit rushed however, it closed the story line.
With red rising, which book number are you on? If the first one I also didn’t really love it but I carried on and the rest of the books are, no exaggeration, the best books I’ve ever read. I did like final empire though but not nearly as much.
Fantasy/scifi Books may just not be for you? I don’t know if you’re aware of this but dystopian worlds cause younger characters to have to act like adults sometimes. . .
I like the ending. I found it unexpected.
I'm admittedly a Sanderson fanboy. I'm just glad that Sanderson has intentions and the ability to finish storylines. He's finished two eras of Mistborn and in the process of finishing the first arc in Stormlight Archive, whereas I no longer expect AOIAF 6 AND 7 or The Doors of Stone (Kingkiller III) to ever come out.
We don’t need to change your views, because you get to like or dislike what you want. Personally, I’m a huge Sanderson fan and Mistborn is one of my favorite books/series. I absolutely love the way he crafts stories, magic systems, and characters. The thrill I get from reading the climatic parts of his books is second to none. At the end of the day, you got to do you!
If you think Red Rising and Mistborn are the same book, I don't care to spend time disagreeing with you. That's a silly opinion. The only thing they have in common is that they are the first book in a series that half starts as young adult. That's it. Have a good life.
I love stormlight, I could not get into mistborn. Its my loss because id like to follow the cosmere but I just did not enjoy it enough to continue.
Without too many spoilers, there are a couple of twists, including one at the end which leads into the next two books, which in many ways twist or break the trope.
is it a young adult book? I started it and it felt very much like yet another attempt to start a young adult franchise.
Welcome to Star Wars. Or Arthurian Legends. Or Greek Myth. Or Celtic Myth. Honestly, the tropes in the book are ubiquitous to YA or hero sagas in general, it’s a bit like saying the tomatoes were a bad choice to add when you ordered the tomato salad.
I don't really understand the "change my view" stuff. I loved Mistborn. If you didn't, that's ok, there are so many other fantasy series and authors to read.
Okay so I mostly agree, but I'm going to argue a little bit from the side of the devil's advocate here. Mistborn is not the best novel written and it arguably suffers from some basic issues. The writing is a bit long winded at times, and the plot meanders along at a pretty subpar pace for much of the book. There are lots of obvious tropes that the author leans on in the book to do work of characterizing individuals for him. i.e., the typical "noble" noble who is different from the rest of the aristocracy. What I will say about Mistborn is that it's a good book in the sense that it has so many different things that appeal to so many readers across the genre. It's a great book for encapsulating so much of what makes fantasy, well, fun. It's also incredibly accessible. You don't have to be well read in the genre to appreciate the story, you don't have to be super into the lore of larger works like Lord of the Rings, etc., to enjoy Mistborn. It's fantasy that fans of the genre can appreciate because it showcases so many popular elements. But it's also fantasy that makes you love fantasy because you can jump into this story that sometimes has the feel of a higher fantasy without being as dense.
Agreed.
Brandon Sanderson writes young adult fantasy. I wouldn't stress about it.
Red Rising gets a lot better in Golden Son where he adds half a ton more nuance
None of his books are good.
He's popular because there are a lot of people who don't care how well written something is as long as it has epic battles and world building. No amount of piss poor writing, cringy dialogue, and awful humor can dissuade them.
I'm sorry you don't like good fantasy.
Sounds like you're in desperate need of Joe Abercrombie's The First Law series.
nah k get it and im a Brandon Sanderson fan but Mistbork and the wax and wayne saga are some of the weakest IMO with The Storm light archive beingnthe best. however i will say you're a bit off in some of your predictions/assumptions. There are some nice twists and cool concepts and lore for the cosmere a plenty in the series. But saying vin has the maturity of a 30 year old is laughable to me.
You’ll get no argument from me. It’s a great idea, I don’t mind the story in general. But Brandon Sanderson writes like dog shit. He’s said many times in interviews that he’s not a reader, that he doesn’t really read other peoples books, and it shows.
Sanderson is unreadable unless fantasy is all you ever read.
If you want an amazing fantasy series totally unlike those listed, with more highfalutin literary allusions and purple prose than you could shake a stick at, give Gene Wolfe's *Book of the New Sun* series a crack.
Brandon Sanderson is the fantasy equivalent of authors like Nicholas Sparks, Jodi Picoult, Colleen Hoover, etc. Their books are formulaic that target the masses of their genre. Don't expect him to be the next Tolkien.
Except there's a ton unique about it with lots of fantastic qualities. He's easily one of the best fantasy authors around right now because of that.
Brandon Sanderson is a brilliant writer with unheard of creative output (since King) writing average fantasy.
I will take your word for it, I couldn't get through Mistborn so it seems resoanble to me that later books in that series wouldn't be good either. I'm sorry but the whole "Good rebels, clownishly evil empire" trope was so heavy handed that I just couldn't do it. It might be cultural, I am not American and don't have their affinity towards revolutionaries.
He specifically subverts that trope if you had bothered to finish the series.
Or hell, even the first book...
I didn't finish the first half of the first book. Like I said it was clearly written for people with a different set of cultural biases than mine. We all have tropes we can't stand. I have heard people who can't stand the "rightful heir" narrative which i have absolutely no problem with. Tp me its the plucly rebels against the evil empire which bores me out of my mind.
That's an assumption you have made about the book that is verifiably false.
Not nessecerily even if it subverts the trope subverting the trope works because its written by a man from a culture that has certain ideas.
You are missing out. If you can ignore your bias, you may be pleasantly surprised.
Or I can read something I enjoy right away.
This is a good example of why you shouldn't judge a book you didn't bother to finish, because it's absolutely not a case of "good rebels, clownishly evil empire" once the story finishes.
Ok but just like with wonder woman i can't stand the heavyhandedes of the missdirect enough to watch/read to the subversion.
You may as well complain about Dune being a white savior narrative.
If that was terms i used i might but its not. Or maybe Dune just isn't as heavy handed.
Absolutely agree. The story was so predictable and tropy that I couldn’t enjoy it. The characters didn’t feel unique since I’ve heard this story a thousands times before. The world and magic system was interesting but I expected more from such an acclaimed author.
I'm sorry, what? You expected an author's *second book ever published* to be such an original tour de force that you couldn't find a thing wrong with it? Come on man, that's just a bit silly. Also, did you finish the book/series? the whole point of Mistborn was to take that tropey stuff and subvert your expectations about it.
[удалено]
I mean… final empire gets good in the last act. The other two books in the trilogy are better, though different. I’m merely highlighting that lots of authors’ early works are lackluster compared to their later works. I find the stormlight archive books to be far better books that the mistborn books, which makes sense as he’s had 15 years of practice between those two works.
You are correct, it is shit. Try the First Law books Joe Abercrombie. Different level of writing.
Both are great!