>As in scientific writing, when the content is already complex, you should avoid embellishing the prose and making the text more difficultIs this true?
>no grace
>>24884809I bet he used LLMs for his later works.
>>24884809he's right. when you're writing a textbook your number one goal must be to dumb everything down and make it as clear, concise, and organized as possible.
>>24884809Yeah. Anons here think that style is substance when they've barely got the wits for style.
True if you want to write the blandest swill imaginable that Redditors will gobble up.
>>24884809But his content isn't complex. Also why is difficulty necessarily a bad thing? Maybe if we didn't try so hard to avoid reading or writing difficult texts literacy standards wouldn't be decreasing so sharply.As an aside, Sanderson and his fans routinely spread the misconception that his prose is simple, unadorned, and "windowpane-like." It isn't. His style is actually very turgid and his syntax is appalling. Additionally, he often uses metaphors and similes in truly baffling ways, to the extent that his meaning is at times indecipherable (pic related.) He is not a minimalist writer in the vein of Hemingway or Orwell. He's simply bad.
>>24884911>But his content isn't complexHis worldbuilding and magic systems are deep
>>24884917They aren't. You're confusing breadth with complexity. Just because there's a lot of stuff in his books doesn't mean any of that stuff is particularly hard to grasp (again, outside of occasionally nonsensical use of figurative language.)
>>24884917Lord of the Rings has a deeper, richer magic system not only because it is cosmic in its scope, but also because it is mysterious and the actual mechanics are largely left to the reader's imagination. Sanderson's worldbuilding feels like a video game tutorial or a DnD rulebook. Although I say this only having read the first Mistborn book. I suppose you could say this is a matter of preference but as someone who has read a lot of fantasy and played many of the CRPG greats of the 90s and 2000s, the systematic, explain everything approach to magic systems is incredibly awkward and forced in Sanderson's work. Also, with regards to style over substance. There is a big difference between terse, economic yet evocative and creative use of language, on the one hand, and the overly simplistic, insipid prose of Mistborn. Although I suppose it might have been better when Sandman eschewed florid writing since we apparently have something like whatever the fuck this is now: >>24884911 But yes, I do have something of an axe to grind, as I really don't like Sanderson's prose style and his work in general; the fact that he is held up as the finest fantasy author of the past two decades or so adds insult to injury. The Wheel of Time books he did were alright though. On that note, although I found Jordan's prose style a bit dull, reading Sanderson's Mistborn made me appreciate Wheel of Time sooooo much more.
