PDA

View Full Version : Brandon FTW


Terez
03-17-2010, 08:44 PM
I love it:

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i111/Terez27/Picture5-15.png

reTaardad
03-17-2010, 09:09 PM
I've never understood why people gripe about things they hate, much less waste time writing a 12 page email about it. Back before TL changed, I remember there was a thread by some guy where he detailed his reasons for disliking WoT. Why waste the time? I mean, if I were to criticize Twilight, I'd make it as simple as:

Dear Stephanie Miers,

I hate your books. They are terrible.

Sincerely,
Stephen Davenport

Don't be a hater for the sake of hatred. Just let things go and let us enjoy the glory of WoT.

Jokeslayer
03-17-2010, 09:13 PM
But if you don't tell her exactly why, how will she know how smart you are?

Davian93
03-17-2010, 10:21 PM
Twilight blows.

Muerandah d'Acre
03-17-2010, 10:24 PM
If the dude doesn't like WoT then why cry about it. No one forces anyone to read the books.

Jokeslayer
03-17-2010, 10:31 PM
I wonder if he really means the WoT as a whole, or if it was more about what the emailer thought was wrong with TGS.

Terez
03-17-2010, 10:35 PM
I imagine the former, or Brandon wouldn't have said it like that (nor would he have been likely to complain).

Muerandah d'Acre
03-17-2010, 10:39 PM
I wait to see Brandon's posting of said person's email to him.

Jokeslayer
03-17-2010, 10:46 PM
I imagine the former, or Brandon wouldn't have said it like that (nor would he have been likely to complain).

Yeah I guess. I just can't comprehend why someone would send him a 12 page email about that, whereas I can see a pissed off RJ diehard fanatic writing to BS to tell him everything he did wrong in TGS.

Muerandah d'Acre
03-17-2010, 11:19 PM
then said person needs to email or post to Harriet, since she is the final say on the books.

Daekyras
03-18-2010, 05:02 AM
I've never understood why people gripe about things they hate, much less waste time writing a 12 page email about it. Back before TL changed, I remember there was a thread by some guy where he detailed his reasons for disliking WoT. Why waste the time? I mean, if I were to criticize Twilight, I'd make it as simple as:

Dear Stephanie Miers,

I hate your books. They are terrible.

Sincerely,
Stephen Davenport

Don't be a hater for the sake of hatred. Just let things go and let us enjoy the glory of WoT.

I wouldn't write to an author like that. I'd just forgo reading the books. Why would stephanie myers need to hear your opinion of her writing? For the record, I agree with your assessment of them!

Anyway, I imagine that the person writing to Brandon isn't a hater. I actually get the impression they're a FAN who is a little misguided and is trying to give advice. As Brandon says, he is going to the wrong place....I wonder if it was toss the dice...

Terez
03-18-2010, 06:09 AM
Really, guys...I doubt it was complaints about TGS. That just doesn't make any sense, for the reasons I mentioned above.

Daekyras
03-18-2010, 06:31 AM
@T, I agree. If it was about tGS I don't think BS would reply at all. It seems to be about WoT in general.

Terez
03-18-2010, 06:37 AM
Anyway, I guess the reason they would be looking for sympathy is that a lot of people think that Brandon taking over the series was the best thing that ever happened to it. And while I'm sure it helps to counteract the bitching about TGS, Brandon does not agree, so that leaves him in a slightly strange spot.

Ishara
03-18-2010, 07:25 AM
Don't be a hater for the sake of hatred. Just let things go and let us enjoy the glory of WoT.

This.

Basel Gill
03-18-2010, 08:24 AM
That. (See above post).

Neilbert
03-18-2010, 11:46 AM
Maybe I just love being a contrarian, but wouldn't sending a letter saying simply "I hate your books" be being a hater just for the sake of being a hater, while a 12 page email detailing your faults could potentially be constructive criticism? I'm not saying it was, just that it could potentially be.

The "I hate your books" letter has no potential value, you make a statement just as strong by not buying the book.

Really, guys...I doubt it was complaints about TGS. That just doesn't make any sense, for the reasons I mentioned above.

So he wants Sanderson to "fix" what RJ did wrong? That's um... yeah that's just idiotic.

Jokeslayer
03-18-2010, 11:56 AM
The "I hate your books" letter has no potential value, you make a statement just as strong by not buying the book.

These books sell, what hundreds of thousands, millions, of copies? One guy not buying one book doesn't send any kind of message.

Ishara
03-18-2010, 12:22 PM
I disagree. Wal-Mart may not notice or care that I don't shop there, but impacts the bottom line in some way. Enough people disagree...and they sell less.

Jokeslayer
03-18-2010, 12:55 PM
How are you sending them a message when the difference you make is one they won't notice?

Neilbert
03-18-2010, 01:25 PM
These books sell, what hundreds of thousands, millions, of copies? One guy not buying one book doesn't send any kind of message.

It sends more of a message than buying the book and writing a letter bitching about it.

How are you sending them a message when the difference you make is one they won't notice?

You think they notice, or care about, an email stating that the book sucks? Which do you think Sanderson would prefer? A million readers buying TGS (and the next two) and filling his inbox with vitrol, or a million people buying TGS and then not buying the next two books?

You can make the argument that one voice is negligible, but it cuts both ways.

I disagree. Wal-Mart may not notice or care that I don't shop there, but impacts the bottom line in some way. Enough people disagree...and they sell less.

Exactly. This book sold less than (previous book in series) is a powerful message.

Casabamelon
03-18-2010, 03:49 PM
Photobucket is blocked here at work, so... question: How does one write a "12 page" e-mail?
________
Free Xxxmovies (http://www.fucktube.com/)

Crispin's Crispian
03-18-2010, 03:55 PM
Photobucket is blocked here at work, so... question: How does one write a "12 page" e-mail?

Perhaps he had to page down 12 times to read the whole thing. Or perhaps he's old skool and prints out the important e-mails, or copies them into Word and reads the page count.

Even though this is the internets, Callandor's Construct Theory is still 40 pages long. No really. I saved it to Word so I could read it more easily.

Kimon
03-18-2010, 06:10 PM
Perhaps he had to page down 12 times to read the whole thing. Or perhaps he's old skool and prints out the important e-mails, or copies them into Word and reads the page count.

Even though this is the internets, Callandor's Construct Theory is still 40 pages long. No really. I saved it to Word so I could read it more easily.

A simple attachment of a Word file is probably more likely.

To be honest, when I first saw this thread I couldn't help but wonder if Toss the Dice had started ranting directly to Sanderson, though in retrospect, Terez is probably correct in assuming that the anonymous ranter was bitching about the series as a whole rather than just TGS, even if the later would make more sense.

halo6819
03-18-2010, 07:47 PM
confermed by bs:
[QUOTE] Brandon Sanderson (Okay, maybe a LITTLE mocking.) This guy hadn't even read wot 12 yet. His complaints were from book 1 on, but he read all the way to 11. ???

Terez
03-19-2010, 12:33 AM
Even though this is the internets, Callandor's Construct Theory is still 40 pages long. No really. I saved it to Word so I could read it more easily.
Frenzy did that when it came out just to see how long it was, and she said it was 59 pages. True story. (http://theoryland.yuku.com/sreply/45512/t/i-m-inventing-a-new-award.html) ;)

Also...I just wrote a hugely long rant on Brandon's Facebook that probably no one will read. It was in response to a post (http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#%21/Mistborn?v=feed&story_fbid=414775591507&ref=mf) about this article. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/246753/terry_goodkind_vs_robert_jordan.html?cat=38) So I figured I'd post it here....


I disagree with the points made about WoT at the end of the article, if only to a matter of degree.

It's a widely-held opinion that RJ lost control of the series in its final half. I never encountered that belief until I found the net fandom, and I had already read the series several times at that point. It certainly didn't seem that way to me.

Perhaps the biggest reason why I didn't have a problem with the later books is because I didn't have to wait years for them. Even though I had read them several times, enough to catch a great deal of foreshadowing, I didn't over-analyze the books as much before as I have in the few years since.... See More

I first read the series when Winter's Heart was not yet out in paperback. I had to wait about a year for Crossroads. The cliffhanger just made me want to read it again, and I did so. Found the net fandom about a year before Knife of Dreams came out.

So here's my theory (I have to have one since I live at Theoryland):

There's an RJ quote that I have on the front page of the RJ/BWS interview database, from less than a year before the release of Lord of Chaos. RJ had probably finished the book, and it was in the editing stages. He probably hadn't yet started A Crown of Swords:

***

Letter to Tom McCormick from RJ - December 1993

One thing -- don't think you've reached bottom in your digging. I tried to make the books fairly simple on the surface, and quite complex underneath. You've dug up a number of points that I thought I had buried well enough that they wouldn't come to light for some time yet (don't expect me to say which ones), and you've also dug up one or two that I never buried in the first place (no hints there, either). Jordan's Law, I think, can better be stated along these lines: "Ah, you think you know how the game goes now? Very good, gentlemen. What say we increase the bets just to make it interesting?"

****

The fandom, in general, seems to have come to the conclusion that what actually happened was the opposite. In fact, the article in the OP says that the 'ladder [sic] volumes...just seemed like so much filler, and weren't very interesting.'

From what I've seen, most of the fandom agrees that Crossroads, at least, was lacking. RJ himself said that the only thing he would have done differently, if given the chance, would have been to structure Crossroads differently than he had (perhaps going all the way with the Perrin timeline, and catching other plots up later, for instance?). So even RJ agrees to a point that there was a weakness there.

But I think that, when the net fandom surfaced, RJ realized he was playing a different ballgame than he had been in the beginning. There is some evidence of that, in the quote above. RJ had a passion for weaving mystery into his overall plot structure that I think is unparalleled among contemporary epic fantasy authors, and when the net fandom began to materialize, it became quite the hive mind. Mysteries became more difficult to hide.

So, RJ wanted to build something that would last. He had to build mysteries that could elude the co-op, and it was always his plan to build certain mysteries to outlast the end of the series. But he found that he had a live audience for his endgame mysteries - the ones that will be answered in the final volumes - and it was an eager audience that drooled over every little clue. The audience seemed to want more of that. The audience seemed to want greater challenges.

I feel that a lot of readers struggle with the latter volumes of WoT mostly because they have a hard time keeping up with who is who, and what has happened already. But is that a good reason to write the series differently?

There is an ethical issue here that I have seen addressed on the forums of the other greats of epic fantasy, like Steven Erikson and George R.R. Martin...especially the latter, because of his agonizing pace with A Song of Ice and Fire, though Erikson has also drawn criticism for the later volumes of Malazan Book of the Fallen, which have grown heavy on philosophy and lighter on action.

With GRRM, you see the argument that an author of serial fiction has an obligation to the fans that are waiting on the next volume. It's an unwritten obligation that is usually at least somewhat covered by the publisher's contract, that the new volumes will be delivered in a timely manner, and that they will sufficiently reward the reader's wait when they come. The longer a book takes to come out, the better it must be.

First of all, both elements of that unwritten obligation are fairly subjective. What is 'timely'? Do you expect an 800-page book to be written in a year? Two? Three? RJ rarely went over three years, but GRRM has taken five for a book that was supposed to have already been written when the previous book was released. What makes a book 'better'? Plot resolution? New plots laid? Action? Screen time for favorite characters?

But perhaps more important than the subjectivity of the obligation to the faithful reader is the question of whether or not the immediate value of the series is more important than its timeless value. And the latter, at least, is quite obviously is yet to be determined, with WoT. It's quite impossible to say whether or not the details of the latter books of the series are unimportant when we've yet to see the end.

I was engaged in my first read of Crossroads, but I know that I was fairly uninterested in certain events of the book on second read, and third. It was the fourth, I think, shortly after I joined Theoryland, when it changed for me, partly because I saw Perrin's character going in some very interesting places. Brandon has said that the importance of the 'slower' books will become more clear in the final two volumes, and this resonates quite a bit with what I have expected from Perrin's plotline in particular.

But none of this is any solace to the faithful serial reader, is it? We want each volume to be individually satisfying. We don't have the patience to wait years to understand the significance of what we are reading.

As someone who read WoT essentially straight through, I feel that the pace and quality of each book was satisfying, and I have a tendency to believe that having to wait three years for a book, as opposed to being able to read the next one immediately, makes a huge difference in how much satisfaction we get from the book. Without those long waits, the series stands more on its continuity and its conclusion than on the individual impact of each book's ending (not that the latter is ever unimportant, exactly). With a long wait, it becomes more about satiation per volume.

Incidentally, Neil Gaiman addressed the issue on his blog, and Brandon has commented on that as well, I believe. The name of Gaiman's blog was "Entitlement Issues", and the blog became infamous for the line, "GRRM is not your bitch".

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/05/entitlement-issues.html

Gaiman's point is rather general, and goes so far as to say that, even if an author chooses not to finish a serial work, then the reader has no say in that decision. There has been no betrayal of the faithful reader, because the money that we spend is for the books that we purchase, not for future books.

Perhaps Gaiman's view is a little extreme, though I can certainly understand where he is coming from. I don't believe we should have any say in an author's decisions, but we surely have a right to stop reading at any point. If this is difficult to do, then the author must be doing SOMETHING right.

Also, I find claims that RJ has 'milked the series' for more money to be ridiculous. He wealthy by anyone's standard when Lord of Chaos was published, and he already had an idea for a new series.

Time will tell, but I believe that RJ has created something that will last. And to the guy that wrote the 12-page email, I'd suggest following Gaiman's advice: get on with your life.
It was going to be a longer rant, but I encountered (not for the first time) the Facebook character limit for comments.

EDIT: I added another comment:

Also, more to the original point:

***

Haddonfield, NJ: I've noticed similarities between your Sword of Truth series and Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series...(Black Sisterhood vs. Black Ajah; The Order vs. The Seanchan; Richard vs. Rand both discovering their powers, both have Nameless evil Gods...etc.) I've often voiced my suspicion that these two series might be occurring on the same world...how crazy am I?... See More

Terry Goodkind: If you notice a similarity, then you probably aren't old enough to read my books.

***

http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20030805003/tscript.htm

When RJ was asked the same question, he merely told the reader to check the publication dates. This is, I think, rather central to the point made earlier: there is simply no comparison here.

Davian93
03-19-2010, 11:34 AM
A simple attachment of a Word file is probably more likely.

To be honest, when I first saw this thread I couldn't help but wonder if Toss the Dice had started ranting directly to Sanderson, though in retrospect, Terez is probably correct in assuming that the anonymous ranter was bitching about the series as a whole rather than just TGS, even if the later would make more sense.

My response would have been as follows:

1. Print out the emailed Word Doc.
2. Perform Pen & Ink grammar changes with red ink as if he was grading a college paper.
3. Scan corrected document.
4. Send scanned document back to sender with no other comment.

jason wolfbrother
03-21-2010, 11:33 AM
You really think he would have read that email of solid red? ;)I think Terez's point is the correct one. Get a life.

Powerslave73
03-21-2010, 01:35 PM
How are you sending them a message when the difference you make is one they won't notice?

For every person who takes the time to write a critical letter (positive or negative), there are 1000 who feel the same way but don't write letters.
They take notice of every letter they get, I'm sure.

Ishara
03-22-2010, 09:02 AM
I'm sure you're wrong.