Modern Fantasy Readers and Writers discussion

Please use this post to discuss the book in general, away from the discussion thread.

Thanks, Jason

I was going to read this book in stages with the group and participate in the discussion section by section, but the book ended up being so tiresome that I decided I needed to wrap it up more quickly.

I think that this book has been grievously over-hyped. It was, to me, rife with clichés and suffered from what I would consider a narrow worldview. The world of the novel is utterly two-dimensional, a monoculture, if you will, from which I could hardly wait to escape.

Two elements in particular that have been widely hyped about this novel appeared to me to under-deliver spectacularly. The first, and less important, is the so-called magical system. I say "so-called" because it was to me completely materialistic and is only "magic" in the colloquial sense of a phenomenon with an unintelligible causality. Moreover, the way in which it worked in the action sequences was utterly confusing and unbelievable. Sanderson wrote these action sequences as if he was watching a movie in his mind to which I, the reader, was not privy, and after a few frustrating attempts to follow the events I ended up skimming them.

The more serious and, to me, unforgivable misrepresentation in the marketing of this book is the notion that it upends the epic fantasy stereotype about "a hero arising to save the world … a young man with a mysterious heritage," as proclaimed on the back of the book. I would have liked a book that challenged the assumptions behind the whole trope of a "hero of prophecy", but instead we find that it is simply a case of someone having usurped the hero's role. As a result, I am left with the unsavory impression that for Sanderson, the only thing wrong with a God-emperor is if you've picked the wrong one.

On more minor issues, I found Vin's character simply did not hold together; Sanderson's heavy-handed emphasis upon her inability to trust anyone gives way to her effectively complete surrender to Elend. The notion of organizing a revolution on the model of a heist also seemed to me very awkward. I suspect that Sanderson had a phenomenon, a revolution, that he couldn't figure out how to get a narrative grasp on, and so he borrowed a form for which he had abundant models, namely the heist. Everything that had to do with the heist formula, assembling the gang, their different personalities, their questioning of Kelsier's leadership, all felt painfully stale.

I have to agree with the fights being practically unreadable. It was liking trying to read about a james bond action sequence or something from the matrix. It just doesn't work that well in prose, even though it works great on TV.

The part about the hero of prophecy I can't disagree with in terms of this book, but in the sequels there is a lot more depth.

I never watched/read a lot of heist stuff so to me it was a bit new, but I can defintely see it being old to someone who has read that kind of material.

You make some ineresting points...I personally liked Mistborn - though not to the degree that many have mentioned. My biggest complaints were

a) The pacing - The last 60 pages or so seemed very rushed whereas all pages up to there seemed to unfold at a slower than necessary pace.

b) I personally liked the "magic system" and thought it was quite new and original - but my complaint was that it was explained and re-explained too many times. We "got it" early on and I didn't think Sanderson trusted his reader enough and did some "hitting over the head" that he could have used a lighter hand on.

I actually liked this book a lot, just to be clear. But the fight scenes seemed to be written in anticipation of a movie.

I liked the book.

The fight scenes were a little overplayed (seems a little better in the second book).

Sanderson did beat some concepts, repeatedly, into our heads. To me that speaks more to inexperience than a lack of skill. It appeared he wasn't certain he had made it clear enough for the reader. Hopefully his confidence grows.

The part I find endearing is his "Philosophy 101" view of the world. He takes some very complex subject matter-how to rule-Rousseau's return to nature, and weaves them into his story. I would say he probably took some Phil courses in college. Or that is me projecting as that was my major and I read into it alot.

I am curious for those who didn't enjoy the book what were you looking for? What would a good story to evaluate be for you?