@@EclipseOfGod with some writers I remember that the words had a feel, and I remember what that feeling was. Brando Sando’s prose is intentionally anemic. He leaves nothing but your imagination. I think that’s what he’s going for when he talks about “being a clear glass window”: if he writes in the most minimal way that someone’s inner monologue speaks, there’s no language between the words on the page and the process of constructing an image from them. It does make it harder to make ambiguous pictures. The closest thing achievable is being vague-using fewer words than is absolutely necessary. That can make it difficult to paint complex pictures without making those who have practice connecting the dots feel there’s no dramatic apprehension, and those who don’t have that practice struggle to keep track of the world. It’s a style that definitely leans more on the side of requiring a reader who’s had practice painting their own pictures, and is also willing to do that for the duration of the book. In comparison to other writers, the plain language can make the world feel less lived in if you’re not constantly keeping track of the small details placed in almost every available space in the fragmented sentence structure. I would add to Man Carrying Thing’s analysis that an overarching piece of Brandon’s brand is parallel storylines with non-linear elements. It’s essentially required when you’re so economical with language that you can’t put the brakes on the story. You _have_ to switch to another character’s POV in order to weave the complex storylines whose points of collision are the connective tissue of the narrative tapestry. oops i write novel TnT sowwy
@@Encysted I’ve only read a few stories by Sanderson(5, some complete some incomplete/still reading). Overall I like his style, the clarity adds fluidity(I’m a slow reader) but I often find myself not caring much about the characters. I think “oh that’s pretty cool,” but I’m not as invested in them, even after spending a lot more time with them than say a short story by another writer.
"They arced and fell, dropping like skyeels upon their prey." This is really clever exposition for the reader to understand how skyeels act. He's masking his exposition as a description for something readers already understand. We already know how arrows would arc in the sky, and Cenn would naturally compare the sight to a skyeel. It doesn't feel over-explainy because he reversed the description on us. I know it's probably really obvious, but it really stood out to me lol.
Yes, I love that line! He always grounds his metaphors in the characters' pov's. If someone is a painter, they'll describe an open landscape like a "fresh canvas" or something. I love it
@@garchomowner yeah! If he instead had a sentence like: "Skyeels arced like arrows in the sky" that would feel like spoonfed exposition, but by simply reversing the description, it becomes natural and clever.
This is such a fantastic breakdown. I was never bothered or overly compelled by Sanderson’s “style.” He just says it how it is and I think that speaks to a lot of people (especially those who may not read epics that often). And I think because he dives into such complex magic, characters, plots, and worlds (which he does not shy away from explaining as many details as he can about them) his very to-the-point style really helps those aspects shine through!
Thanks Catherine! And you're right -- could you imagine how long those books would be if he wrote like Tolkien? The clarity is so important, especially because his world is so bizarre. How he is able to organize the information in the story is seriously amazing
great point, another really solid observation. he packs so many scenes (as @man carrying thing said) that, to burden it with heavy-handed prose would be to do a LOT more than maybe a lot of people would be willing to put up with.
@@mysticmagicsmurfdarklord6844 WAY OF KINGS SPOILERS!!! He is mentioned in Kaladin's flashback very briefly, Kaladin watches him get killed by the shardbearer.
I often experience Sandersson’s writing as very cinematic. I can sometime even feel the camera shift and things like that. I think this has to do with the grounded language and simplified prose. Many authors just do too much and instead of me being completely immersed I just become aware that I’m reading a book. Even when the prose are beautiful and I need to stop and reread a part because it’s so good- it takes me out of the story.
@Mark Borok Yep, Brandon’s prose was definitely a weak spot in his earlier works. This is even noticeable in Mistborn. The amount of flaring, pushing and pulling on coins in that book is truly astonishing and obviously repetitive. But he has made so much progress in these past years that I now find his prose one of his strengths as they fit my taste perfectly.
“How do you ‘accidentally’ kill a nobleman in his own mansion?” “With a dagger to the chest,” Kelsier said lightly. “Or rather, a pair of them. It never hurts to be cautious.” Dockson rolled his eyes. ^^^best line. It somehow conveys their entire character in 3 or 4 sentences.
@@hitzkooler15 as the comment above said, dynamic is a better word to use. In only a few sentences it conveys: -Kelsier hates Nobles -Kelsier is sarcastic and charismatic -Dockson puts up with what Kelsier does -This is normal for Kelsier Once again, a very simplified character and their dynamic are explained in those sentences. The comment above was definitely right about how Kelsier is a complex character and you’re right that no character can be explained in only a sentence, but if there are any four sentences in the book that could get Kelsier and Dockson’s attitude down to the tee, those would be it imo.
i literally dont even think of his writing as im reading, it really does feel invisible to me - this breakdown was 10/10, where were u when i was still in school plz?
Brandon Sanderson's writing style is a special effect. When it works well, you don’t even notice it's there. When it's awkward or clumsy, you notice it immediately.
After all the times people mention "but his writing style is really simple", it's been time someone made a video like this. And boy, was it a good video, instantsub!
This is a fantastic analysis. I've always thought that his style matches the stories he wants to tell very well, in that it helps him make his worlds seem accessible and grounded to the reader despite them being so different from our own in many cases. It really helps close the narrative distance and lets the readers imagine his worlds as actual places.
I love this analysis. Accessible and Contemporary is a style in and of itself. No style IS a style. When the world and its inhabitants are already quite alien that readers sometimes go back to read through passages for a better understanding, writing the way Sanderson does helps keep up the pacing and flow as well as lowering the learning curve required to enjoy the story. It's a story for both the casual and the dedicated readers.
Not really. I find myself rather wanting as someone who doesn’t consider himself to be “hardcore.” I’d rather get a book with more interesting language being used.
It's interesting, but what you've identified here-gerunds, em dashes, clear prose, metaphors used in reverse to world build-are actually the basic building blocks that most fantasy authors use. I think that's how he achieves his pane of glass style... by using the stylistic elements that readers of the genre are already expecting to see. While gerunds and em dashes are popular across all fiction right now (parenthesis having become much less trendy since Strunk and White wrote the Elements of Style), I think the clear prose and reverse metaphors are especially common in fantasy. For the clear prose, this is usually how I see it taught. In literary fiction, you can say that the bus was a cat, slinking between the cars as it dove down a darkened alleyway. But in fantasy, the bus could literally be a cat, so a simile or clear prose is needed. If you rely on the less clear way you'd use in other genres, it's unclear what's an image and what's a fact of the world. And the reverse metaphor is something I'm particularly fond of, though it probably has some fancy, official name? But like you said: we know what arrows are, but we don't know what a sky eel is. So the metaphor is actually there for the sky eel world building. Anyways, fun video =] Thank you for making it.
I think you have a point. I've read a few fantasy novels and they seem to share very similar sentence and paragraph structures. Not all authors are like this, mind you, but a similarity nonetheless. Chao
lol that point about how a bus could literally be a cat so you need to be careful. Never thought of that before but you're so right, it makes certain more imagistic and metaphorical writing styles much more challenging to pull off
@@henrykramer365 well it depends on the context of the world. in a grounded epic fantasy with a hard rational magic system that is very self contained, such a description would be perfectly fine (not exactly this one ofc, buses won't exist)
One thing I love about Brandon's writing is how POV plays a subtle yet impactful way he writes a chapter/section despite it being in third person. It's easier to notice in something like Stormlight Archive when there's a lot of diverse POVs to contrast with each other. This is beautiful illustrated in the fact that we see Gavilar's death from four (and soon to be five) different POVs. What Szeth, Jasnah, Eshonai, and Navani all notice something different which helps fill in the gaps of what happened that night but it also gives each of the prologues personality.
What I especially love is that since you see the exact same night at the start of each book, you can fill in gaps simply using information from the previous book. For example, Dalinar's drinking problem inadvertently leaves Gavilar without the Blackthorn to take down Szeth, therefore causing his death. We don't know why he has that problem until Oathbringer, so when you read Navani's version of events, you know why Dalinar is drinking himself into a stupor. On top of that, each version of events doesn't feel "incomplete", insofar that you don't feel like you need someone else's perspective to figure out what happened (except for Gavilar's perspective, which is in a way one of the central mysteries of TSA). For example, reading through Szeth's perspective feels very complete, despite it being the introduction to the world of Roshar. You don't feel like you need to know what the king's brother or the queen were doing, because the informal you've been given makes them seem unimportant to the scene.
He’s probably the first writer to make me think that characters in fantasy were real people. Probably because they talk in simple prose. I recall being so annoyed at Aragorn for talking a paragraph to apologize for walking fast. I love Tolkien, but no one talks like that.
Hahaha yeah, I completely agree. Fantasy is fantasy -- characters don't have to all talk like LOTR! No problem if they do, but it's certainly refreshing when they don't
@@TomorrowWeLive I suppose there is no reason for them to speak in contemporary English. But since this is a fantasy world, there is no reason for them to speak Middle or Edwardian English either. Technically they speak their native tongue in whatever is the contemporary speech. Sanderson is just translating into whatever would make the most sense to his reader. Maybe you could ask for a new translation?
@@MeMySkirtandI Dont get me wrong i like Sanderson, he is good at worldbuilding, plot twists and magic systems but his dialogues are really not good compared to f.e. Joe Abercrombie or Robin Hobb.
Read a lot of Sanderson's books and was never able to pinpoint how he writes with such a great pace in these massive novels - your analysis answered that question and then some - very well done!!
I think his style is about as invisible as it could be. He's one of the few authors that almost immediately makes the story play out like a movie in my head, whereas it usually takes me a hundred pages or more to get into the rhythm of someone else's style.
Remember when Jake single handedly made orange his brand?? Now I only see that color and think of your channel. I loved watching this too, I love Sanderson's writing and I've literally only read The Final Empire. His writing style is SO accessible and I appreciate that so much, because fantasy writers can be so dense...and heavy in their writing. And that can make them seem scary and people new to the adult fantasy genre can get skittish. Sanderson is such a warm welcome to the fantasy genre. What a fantastic analysis.
Hahahahahahaa orange was such a random choice. I used it in my first thumbnail and my wife was like "now that's your color." Um...okay? Also I agree with you, Fantasy can be so intimidating. I think Brandon's style is so focused on clarity that the world doesn't feel too bizarre (even though it is). Thanks Rachael :)
I've read fantasy my whole life; never really thought of that before. His prose seems simple and barren to me, (I don't mean to sound insulting) but that's simply because my personal preference IS gorgeous descriptions. But accessibility is a valid/good point...
This makes me want to actually read Words of Radiance. I’ve been putting it off for such a long time. I remember really enjoying how easily Way of Kings flowed as if it weren’t 1000 pages.
WoR has one of the best written scenes in a book that I have read. Honestly I dont know which book i preferred more, they are both supremely excellent and an aspiring writers goldmine. Have yet to read oathbringer!
I've said a couple of times in my reviews that Sanderson's writing style is characterised by its absence, he uses it as an effective way to get the story from his wonderful brain into yours, but man you put it way more eloquently! More videos like this!
Answering the question of what we thought of his style: My friend and I are currently reading through the Stormlight Archive as my reintroduction into the Fantasy genre, and for the first 1.5 books ( we're on book 3 now) his writing made reading the story really difficult for me. I think the inclusion of the "clear glass" metaphor is apt here, because his writing felt like looking at the events through a TV screen, and a lot of the plot devices he eventually employs were telegraphed in his scene constructions. Not a bad choice flat out, but one I struggled to connect with. My reading partner definitely heard the nuances of that struggle from me at least weekly. 😅 I think this video really helps detail and name some of the things that I found difficult to connect with, but more in the summation of its parts: the telling of the story is in sequence, but it didn't feel tactile for the first 2 books: the sights were there, but no smells or sounds or textures (even though there was food and thunder and crem). I wish I knew what crem felt like, or what the city of Jah Kaved (or Alethkar) smelled like.
I’m a fan of every single one of these writing tactics, and I think all of it together makes a book that much more accessible and enjoyable to the masses. Well done! Would love to see more of these :o)
For me, a big part of the joy of writing is in the clever ways that the author can use language and bend it to their purposes. But I'm very much a prose guy, I *want* to be able to appreciate the artistry of the language itself, like poetry. I know not everyone cares so much about that and just wants to be told a story. It's just for me, an artful simile or metaphor is in itself a thing of considerable beauty, or can be if done well. Of course I can still appreciate a story without flowery language, but it's just a different kind of appreciation and to me at least, feels more empty. I do really like the use of em dashes by modern writers, though. They can also quite effectively replace a semicolon. They're just great for maintaining a sort of visual clarity while still allowing for more complex or convoluted sentence structures to be employed.
I'm not a poetry guy, nor care that much about prose, but I appreciate that some do find these elements crucial for a good read. What pulls me out of a story, would be flowery speech or other embellishments that conflict with my own thoughts. I think lots of people like that conflict. It challenges them and gives them more to think about. You are right, a good story told is important to me. It's escapism that I find the most compelling - Sanderson open the cage and pushes me out. I have yet, to meet anyone that enjoys the exact same authors or books as I do. Sanderson is a problem, for some because he is very popular and loved by many, while his prose lacks the substance of a truly great writer. I'm not one that thinks like this. Sanderson writes clear and concise prose that conveys the story he wants to tell.
Great video. Really interesting breakdown. From skimming the comments I don’t think this will be a popular opinion but here goes. I found Sanderson through his lectures online and think he’s got a lot of great advice for writers. So last summer I tried to read Mistborn. His style isn’t for me. Growing up, the first author that really got his hooks into me was Stephen King, and I still prefer elements of his style over others. Clarity is great, and I love a good story, but having evocative and compelling language is important to me, and I need an author’s voice to make a story pop and bring a book up from something that is fast food into something that is memorable. To me, that’s one of the best things books have going for them over movies and tv. And when you distill things down to such a “non-style”, you are watering down the medium into its most palatable and losing a lot of the color and style that makes me prefer reading a great story over experiencing it some other way. That said, and this is almost its own video-I can see how this style works particularly well for audio. Some of my favorite books to read are hard to follow and just don’t work as audio and I’d be interested in how audio is changing the way people write.
Exactly. For me it is like reading LOTR and Percy Jackson. Percy Jackson has a great story and it is super easy to read. But I don't fell like reading it again because the only think that matters is the story and those I tend to never forget, even with the great amount of foreshadowing. (I LOVE IT THOUGH, DON'T GE ME WRONG) LOTR on the other hand has a amazing slow prose, super detailed. Middle-earth feels alive and if tou give me the map I can show you the exact path the fellowship took. I'm also always thinking about the past of the middle-earth and its future too. Will elfs return ever again? Man, the dwarf used to be great. Etc. Sorry for my english.
I love love love his style, I've been talking to people complaining about the "plainness" and I always wanted to argue for his style but what I needed is literally this :D thank you for putting my feels into world 😁
I suspect that the several quick ‘n short edits when telling the viewer how BrandoSando distills the prose down to its, “essential stuff,” was a design choice.
This is a tremendous breakdown of his prose. I would say Brandon writes practically at all times depending on what his scenes need. And in the climaxes he uses the sentence fragments, em dashes, and also shortened POVs to be evocative without being flowery.
Sanderson's prose has its qualities, anonymity among them, and it often reminds me of Stephen King: everyday language wherever nothing more is required. That being said, despite my respect and love for their stories they are among the few A-list authors whose prose pulls me out of the story. This is of course highly subjective, but I would rather have an author writing beautifully and causing me to stop and admire a phrase or passage than one who is a tad repetitive, ham-fisted or simply too everyday and casual.
The problem with being too casual is that this is literature. Not making use of the breadth and depth of the language you’re writing in is like a filmmaker not using any cinematography that isn’t shot-reverse shot. If the language is so unimportant to you, why are you writing a book and not a screenplay?
@@theatheistbear3117 Probably because some stories would just be impossible to produce as a film or tv show from a budget or technical standpoint. I agree with you though, I think prose should be a priority for any fiction writer because it can enhance the experience so much and is literally the language of your medium. Your comparison to a director not utilising cinematography well is very apt. There is a difference between simple prose and basic prose.
I recently discovered that aphantasia is a thing, and I definitely have it. I think that's why I, historically, have preferred non-fiction reading to fiction. So many countless times I've found myself reading pages and pages of descriptions and metaphors asking myself "why are you wasting my time? We're in X-location and X-characters are here doing X-thing to move the narrative or themes along. That's enough. I don't need all this flowery language to explain things I can't picture anyway." For this reason, I found myself really enjoying Sanderson's writing. You could write about the endless expanse of something, or you could just say there's a lot of something. Either way, my brain processes it the same way, so I appreciate the efficiency of his prose. Having learned that most people actually do create literal pictures in their heads, though? Now I understand why so much fiction is the way it is, and why "workmanlike prose" is so looked-down on. I always assumed that "painting a picture for the reader" was just a dumb, meaningless metaphor for the pretentious. But since most people literally can have that done for them, of course the normal reader wants lots of descriptions and metaphors. Of course they prefer it that way. Anyway, all that is to say that I now know why I like Sanderson so much, and why many don't.
It is possible to write an epic fantasy with a lyrical style. Sanderson puts the reader into such an "alien" milieu, with so many novel concepts and characters, that, by necessity, he needs to keep things clear. His direct lucid style is a feature, not a bug, to make sure readers don't get confused.
To me, this is video is by far the best analysis I've seen of Brandon's Style. The others I've seen tend to strike me as mischaracterizations of the intent and effect he's going for; not only is he not trying to be Rothfuss or, like, James Joyce or something-if he were, he would not be able to produce the kinds of experiences that he's going for. He is not in the poeticism business - he's in the "showing you an engaging fantasy world" business. If he constantly bombarded the reader with headscratchy, overengineered sentences that require the reader to stop and mentally unpack them to truly savour how super extra poignant they might be "if ya really think about it", then he would just be getting in his own way. It's insane to me that most videos looking at his prose make the assumption that flowery zinger writing is somehow better than going for something uncomplicated but effective that inherently comes with benefits like fast pace, great conveyance, high immersion. Literally more story per minute you spend reading.
Aren't those present participles, rather than gerunds? As you point out, they look the same, but these -ing words that BranSan uses are part of participle phrases that modify nouns. I've found at least one source that identifies them as gerunds, but more that identify them as participles, like this one: owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/mechanics/gerunds_participles_and_infinitives/participles.html Anyway, that doesn't really matter. Love this video! Great analysis. As someone who digests Sando-boy mainly through audiobooks, I appreciate that his style makes it sound like Michael Kramer is just casually telling me a story.
Great talk and explanation about sanderson's writing style! Sometimes I feel like he over explains a little bit. In your example, they are in the heat of battle, and the character is thinking about who owns the land and why the battle is happening rather than staying alive. Sometimes it pulls me out of the moment a bit. However, I usually prefer that he does this so we know what's going on and why it's going on.
Thanks! I think one of his weaknesses is not trusting the reader enough. He repeats exposition over and over, and I agree, it can pull me out of the story sometimes
@@ManCarryingThing it's true he repeats himself a lot but i've often found myself being like shit i really had forgotten about this so it does help to have a reminder from time to time, especially in-between books
As a reader who generally reads stuff that has an emphasis on the prose or includes some formal experimentation, it was a struggle to get through the Mistborn trilogy. My basic problem is that the writing is so intensely repetitive. Even these strategies you described are ones he uses ALL the time and, even worse, it's very noticeable and not even done very well. Even something like what you describe as 'gerunds' is something he does on nearly every page. And I would argue it's not even a good strategy. Sure that type of sentence structure can be "economical" but it's also really easy and really boring and really frustrating to read a hundred times a book. And maybe this would be fine if the plot and characters were solid but I think the simple, clunky, boring prose actually hinders characterization as well as plot development. To me it's not clear glass writing so much as foggy glass writing. There's no detail, and the subtext is spelled out so I just can't see much.
Even in the one example he gave Sanderson uses the word "arrows" six times in the same paragraph and "behind him" twice in two very similar, almost adjacent sentences to describe where they are landing. It's not a stylistic choice either, its's just repetition. It's the complete opposite of efficient or economical. It seems to me that all this talk about "glass-like" or "invisible" prose is an attempt to cover up his lack of style or at least an attempt at making it seem more intentional than it actually is.
Any artists style is essentially just a masking of their short comings. (Or an emphasis on their stengths.) It might not speak to you personally but that doesn't make it bad per se.
@@GlacialScion I didn't say that I dislike repetition per-se, I dislike repetition without any stylistic intention. Sanderson is very guilty of this not just with individual words but entire phrases and it's considered a very amateur "mistake" or at least poor style. I have other problems with his prose as well but I brought up the repetition specifically because it completely deflates the argument that Sanderson is "efficient" or "economical". Using the same noun six times in a single paragraph to describe the same object is not what I would call an efficient or economical use of language.
Thank you for taking the time to put into words just how weak Sanderson's prose is. These days folks are unable to distinguish truly economical prose from unresourceful, repetitive hogwash. In Warbreaker, for example, every time a character is frustrated they grit their teeth. It happens over twenty times, some even within the span of two or three pages.
Reading is like driving on a road. Sanderson is a straight, flat road. It isn't a bad thing. It gets you to where you're going without much input on your part.
If I recall correctly, the first time in Final Empire that was learn the plants are brown/there are no flowers is during dialogue between Vin and Kelsier (if it was mentioned previously, I missed). Regardless of my recall, I think these exchanges show such a mastery of world-building and exposition. During the conversation, Kelsier does not hamfistedly mention that the plants are brown; it starts as a natural conversation, wherein you learn a super important fact about the world. Sanderson excels at this more than almost any other fantasy/sci-fi author I’ve ever read. Even in simply describing the arc of the arrows, he provides world building effortlessly. It makes a very complex world easier to digest
I really enjoyed this breakdown. As I am currently reading LOTR and Stormlight side by side, the differences between the window and the stained glass style stand out to me and I think both have their pros and cons. There is something about reading poetic prose that is a beautiful experience in my opinion. To both be immersed in the story while also appreciating the literature for literature's sake is wonderful, howbeit difficult. This is a well used example but the sentence "not idly do the leaves of lorien fall," just looks, sounds and feels right, however endless pages of location description can take away from the march of the plot. The one thing about Sanderson's writing that I think he has difficulty accomplishing is remaining modern, and simple in his prose as you explained while also maintaining the sense of epic fantasy. In general, I think he sacrifices the richness of Shakespearian English for modern language for practical reasons, however, in those pinnacle moments of pure epicness, he can't help but be drawn back into it. Take for example this line by Syl as she is reunited with Kaladin in Words of Radiance: _“Kaladin!” Syl’s voice. “Stretch forth _*_thy_*_ hand!”_ I think there is a reason why he chooses to use the arachaic second person possessive pronoun here, but for me, it came across as a little out of place. Maybe, he explains these choices somewhere else, but I do not envy him, because it's a fine line to tow! Anyways, I really appreciate his writing no matter what! Thanks for the video again!
I’ve never really been a fan of Brandon Sanderson and I’ve been avoiding reading the Stormlight Archives as a result, just because it would be such a massive time commitment to something I’m not passionate about - and one of my biggest concerns has been his prose. However, this review helped me understand his style a lot more clearly and I can appreciate (though I still don’t love) his more economic, non-intrusive, and direct writing style. I respect that those are intentional choices, rather than evidence of a lack of skill or creative vision. I think someday I’ll try to give the series a go!
I think it might be worth mentioning that the snippet you're looking at is an action sequence--the language necessarily simplifies and speeds up to keep the energy of the scene up. That's not to say that BrandoSando doesn't use the style a lot, but I think it probably has a lot to do with the fact that he writes a ton of high energy action scenes :b It's how he keeps up the breakneck pace of these monstrous books.
I would recommend reading some Peter V. Brett for another example of someone with good and transparent prose. I'm never sure which I like better, prose that doesn't get in the way or prose like Anna Spark Smith's where it's over the top, but poetic and dripping with emotion. Fantastic video btw.
Thanks David! I've never read any Peter V. Brett -- but I find myself often asking myself the same question. Prose that is dripping with emotion, or that is clear and simple. The only writer I can think of who writes with a simple style yet drips with emotion is Hemingway
4:40 I view em dash as a replacement for the word "Which". A landlord was encroching on Brightlord Amaram's territory, which was the ultimately the land owned by Highprince Sadeas. The term "Which was" just gets replaced by a em dash, also prompting a sentence structure change obviously.
In this book I like Sanderson’s style when he’s writing about the war camps and bridge runs. Can’t get enough of that intensity. The rest of the book is the time spent waiting for the next intense scene.
Fantastic analysis! Even though I'm not a huge fan of his writing style, as I generally prefer something a little bit more poetic...I do appreciate how simple it is. Shipwrecked Library made a great point on how accessible his writing is. So true. One of the reason's Sanderson is so accessible is because his writing is easy to access for pretty much every level of reader. Also, I love an em dash too.
This is very interesting, especially because, after growing up on Tolkien, I started reading the Stormlight Archive right as I started serious work on my own book. As I'm chugging through my own story, I've found a lot of Sanderson's style elements popping up in my writing. I already use an unholy number of em-dashes, but I've found myself copying his technique in writing internal dialogue, and even using "storms" as a placeholder curse.
Good analysis. One additional element of his style not discussed here is his use of point of view. Not only does it really help enhance the storytelling, exposition, and world-building, but the way the prose style changes to match the character is not only enlightening, but also fun and really breaks up what could otherwise become monotonous (Wayne's chapters from the 2nd Mistborn trilogy stand out in my mind). But I did not find Sanderson's style to be invisible. I almost quit reading my first Sanderson novel (Way of Kings) halfway through because I found his style annoying and distracting. I think it had a lot to do with all the sentence fragments, which for me felt unnatural and awkward in a formal prose context that was clearly not modern-day USA. It was kind of like watching Kevin Costner play Robin Hood with his American accent. I've since come around, of course, and now appreciate his style for what it is, or at least for what he is striving for.
I am so excited to talk about this!! I am someone who prefers the artistry of writing over what Sanderson referred to as the craftsmanship. I really love abstract writing that makes me think and use my brain to try and understand what's going on. When I am reading a Sanderson, I am typically incredibly annoyed by his writing during the first 200-300 pages. Once I get fully immersed into the story I can appreciate the utilitarianism, but for the first big chunk I feel like I'm having my hand held and being talked down too. I agree with your assement that it is not an invisible writing style because if it were I wouldn't get as annoyed with it as I do 😂
I often refer to this as a lack of subtlety. Sometimes he takes his desire to be transparent over the top and ends up overexplaining things. I understand it's benefits, but for my personal taste it doesn't always jive
Just starting mistborn, my first foray. He comes across as Brandon Sanderson. A chatty, charismatic American talking to college students about an awesome fantasy world. I think this video might have helped me get over that so i can enjoy the story
Interesting analysis of his language style. I'm reading "Edgedancer", the first book of Sanderson's I've tried, I find some of the adjectives and metaphors used by the central character, Lift, take me out of the story, like when she says "I'm so storming pure I practically belch rainbows."
Thank you -- I can see what you mean about Lift. Often her dialgue/thoughts feel a little TOO modern. However I like that he keeps us in her pov so strongly
That might he because Edgedancer us a novella set in the Stormlight Archive and is supposed to be read after you've read book 2. Jumping straight into Roshar via Edgedancer prolly wasn't the best.
Nooo, why are you reading Edgedancer first?? Edgedancer is set after the second book in the Stormlight Archive, it's somewhat the 2.5th book in the series.
I initially found his prose kind of clunky, especially coming to his books right after reading kingkiller chronicle, but knowing it's an intentional choice is really cool. And honestly, after reading thousands of pages of stormlight, I've grown kind of fond of it.
Problem is not getting used to it after thousands of pages, but getting used to it early enough so that one can read thousands of pages without getting turned off from the books, which happens to most people who come from other fantasy series with actual quality prose
I'd love to see you do a whole series on writing styles of different fantasy authors. You have some good insights. May I request you do Patrick Rothfuss?
I think it usually does feel invisible to me, with the exception of The Emperor's Soul and the Shadows... Forest... Hell... I can't remember the name of that one lol. Those felt like the prose was a bit more of a feature than just a backdrop. For everything else that I've read from him, the writing does basically disappear for me, which feels very transportive. I almost feel like I'm in a video game for a lot of it, which isn't maybe a direct compliment, but is meant as one.
If you're wanting a more academic way to talk about the effect of the gerunds, they create a sense of deictic proximity. Deixis refers to the 'closeness' of a narrator. Present 1st person feels 'closer' than past 3rd person, even if they convey the same information.
The biggest thing I think Sanderson does is write using language that the narrating character would use. So, when Dalinar narrates, you get lots of war and royalty type words, while with Cenn, it uses very short, basic words that a scared little boy would use.
Up-front apology for the grammar nitpicking, but: Those are mostly not actually gerunds. They’re gerunds when they (or their clause) function as nouns, such as: “Analyzing style is hard” (“Analyzing style” functions as a noun there). Most of the examples are present participles, they function more or less as adjectives. Ok, nitpick over. Great video! :)
I also feel like his use of those sentence fragments and repetition helps to make key moments feel like they’re moving slower. The example of “But not Kaladin’s squad. No shields for them.” Makes me feel briefly like I’m in the head of this scared kid, paused for a moment in time just before the arrows fall upon the army.
I am not good at picking up style but what I appreciate from Sanderson style of writing, what was mentioned in the video, is that it is very easy to understand and approach. Even with his stormlight archive series which are huge epic fantasy stories with ton of characters and cultures, it is always easy to pick up and read. There is a ton of information but it is easy to follow. While for example the wheel of time or the first law trilogy, it can sometimes get a bit much too follow and reading them when tired is a challenge. There both great series, and sometimes I miss the added complexity in Sanderson books, but less approachable then for example the stormlight archives.
His style leans towards technical and business writing, which needs to be clear to be understandable. As more people have moved into desk jobs and white collar jobs, this is closer to the prose they would see and use at work.
It should be noted that you can write with crystal clear clarity and still be artful. Cormac McCarthy is an extreme example. Mind you, his prose requires a mature reader (he doesn't write for the 8th-grade-education crowd), but his prose is crystal clear, yet jaw-droppingly beautiful. Hemingway is probably the poster child of easy to digest prose, but also so artfully crafted. There are so many examples. Of course, these examples are top tier writers, so it's unfair to use them as examples perhaps, but they serve to drive home the point: you don't have to sacrifice artfulness to achieve clarity.
feel dumb commenting on a pretty old video, but I would love to hear your take on Gene Wolfe. Seems like almost the inverse of Sanderson, or maybe a mastery in a completely different set of skills
Great video! As someone who has only read the first Mistborn so far, Sanderson's prose was his biggest weakness to me personally (I tore it apart in my Goodreads review lol), and the main thing keeping me from jumping right into Wells of Ascension. But it does seem to accomplish his intent, and I can see how it would appeal to others :)
personally i think the point is not to be invisible, but to be transparent you can see a window if you focus on it, but you can also see through it as if it isn't there however the stained glass prose of other authors can sometimes feel like you're having to squint through the writer's blocks of text to actually see the world they're presenting
I honestly think that this has more to do with the literacy of the average person having dropped in quantity rather than an issue with most of the writing.
I liked this analysis very much. I've read about 300 pages of the way of kings, and the last 2 books were the name of the wind and the wise man's fear, so I was accustomed to a more poetic prose (which i absolutely loved). So didn't know what to think about Sanderson's style. I did think it was simplistic (in a bad way), so I searched online to find opinions and explanations. I didn't like the glass vs stained window glass at all, because I didn't think it applied to Sanderson vs Rothfuss, for example. Writing in a simple way doesn't mean that you simply see the image clearer. The flowery nature of the kingkiller chronicles books is precisely what forms a striking image in my head. I don't see it diffused, but enhanced. So I was disappointed with the explanations I found. But the explanation given in this video is different from the rest and it has convinced me that his style isn't simple in a bad way. It isn't just simple either. It's simple with purpose. That everyday nature of his writing style does give importance and impact to sentence (like "But not Kaladan's squad. No shields for them"). It's not flowery, but it has substance in the way it's written and it's fun to read. Simple would've been "Amaran's soldiers raised shileds. Kaladin's squad didn't have shields. Cenn screamed." So I wouldn't say it's simple. I'd say it's everyday-like. But it's full of substance.
Man I know this is late but I liked the beginning of Mistborn (cause it's all I red from him that I remember being his). It is very easy to get sucked into those worlds because of the language which also makes it easier to get into the world that he's crafted. I gotta finish that series.
I think of good prose as being fireworks vs daylight. Fireworks are beautiful, artful, impressive, and even awe inspiring, but daylight is much better for getting somewhere fast.
I remember in the way of kings he goes overly detailed into descriptions of what characters are wearing, something I didn't very much enjoy. I'm glad that it reduces a bit in the later books
I dont remember reading the words but I can clearly remember in my head the scenes presented to me.
I think only writers clearly remember reading the words, readers see in their mind.
@@EclipseOfGod with some writers I remember that the words had a feel, and I remember what that feeling was. Brando Sando’s prose is intentionally anemic. He leaves nothing but your imagination. I think that’s what he’s going for when he talks about “being a clear glass window”: if he writes in the most minimal way that someone’s inner monologue speaks, there’s no language between the words on the page and the process of constructing an image from them.
It does make it harder to make ambiguous pictures. The closest thing achievable is being vague-using fewer words than is absolutely necessary. That can make it difficult to paint complex pictures without making those who have practice connecting the dots feel there’s no dramatic apprehension, and those who don’t have that practice struggle to keep track of the world.
It’s a style that definitely leans more on the side of requiring a reader who’s had practice painting their own pictures, and is also willing to do that for the duration of the book. In comparison to other writers, the plain language can make the world feel less lived in if you’re not constantly keeping track of the small details placed in almost every available space in the fragmented sentence structure.
I would add to Man Carrying Thing’s analysis that an overarching piece of Brandon’s brand is parallel storylines with non-linear elements. It’s essentially required when you’re so economical with language that you can’t put the brakes on the story. You _have_ to switch to another character’s POV in order to weave the complex storylines whose points of collision are the connective tissue of the narrative tapestry.
oops i write novel TnT sowwy
@@Encysted I’ve only read a few stories by Sanderson(5, some complete some incomplete/still reading). Overall I like his style, the clarity adds fluidity(I’m a slow reader) but I often find myself not caring much about the characters. I think “oh that’s pretty cool,” but I’m not as invested in them, even after spending a lot more time with them than say a short story by another writer.
But yeah I agree with most of the things that you mentioned.
me too
"How many archers did they have?"
"a lot. like a lot a lot."
"woah"
Lol
"They arced and fell, dropping like skyeels upon their prey."
This is really clever exposition for the reader to understand how skyeels act. He's masking his exposition as a description for something readers already understand. We already know how arrows would arc in the sky, and Cenn would naturally compare the sight to a skyeel. It doesn't feel over-explainy because he reversed the description on us.
I know it's probably really obvious, but it really stood out to me lol.
Yes, I love that line! He always grounds his metaphors in the characters' pov's. If someone is a painter, they'll describe an open landscape like a "fresh canvas" or something. I love it
holy shit this is a REALLY good observation and, to me, not very obvious at all!
it's great because skyeels appear in illustration in later chapters and by that time my mental image of one is very close to the official pictures lol
@@garchomowner yeah! If he instead had a sentence like: "Skyeels arced like arrows in the sky" that would feel like spoonfed exposition, but by simply reversing the description, it becomes natural and clever.
What a great observation.
This is such a fantastic breakdown. I was never bothered or overly compelled by Sanderson’s “style.” He just says it how it is and I think that speaks to a lot of people (especially those who may not read epics that often). And I think because he dives into such complex magic, characters, plots, and worlds (which he does not shy away from explaining as many details as he can about them) his very to-the-point style really helps those aspects shine through!
Thanks Catherine! And you're right -- could you imagine how long those books would be if he wrote like Tolkien? The clarity is so important, especially because his world is so bizarre. How he is able to organize the information in the story is seriously amazing
great point, another really solid observation. he packs so many scenes (as @man carrying thing said) that, to burden it with heavy-handed prose would be to do a LOT more than maybe a lot of people would be willing to put up with.
I like this Cenn character, excited to read more about him!
Haha I get it, because he never appears again
@@mysticmagicsmurfdarklord6844 WAY OF KINGS SPOILERS!!!
He is mentioned in Kaladin's flashback very briefly, Kaladin watches him get killed by the shardbearer.
@@catlover-fp5ig yes, I know
@@catlover-fp5ig that’s the joke bro
@@supremeleadersmeagol6345 I know, I'm saying that he does actually appear again later in the book (only as a flashback though).
I often experience Sandersson’s writing as very cinematic. I can sometime even feel the camera shift and things like that. I think this has to do with the grounded language and simplified prose. Many authors just do too much and instead of me being completely immersed I just become aware that I’m reading a book. Even when the prose are beautiful and I need to stop and reread a part because it’s so good- it takes me out of the story.
That's...a really good point actually. I never thought of it like that before. Thanks for opening my mind to a different point of view!
@@princessthyemis, yeah, same.
@Mark Borok Yep, Brandon’s prose was definitely a weak spot in his earlier works. This is even noticeable in Mistborn. The amount of flaring, pushing and pulling on coins in that book is truly astonishing and obviously repetitive. But he has made so much progress in these past years that I now find his prose one of his strengths as they fit my taste perfectly.
Omg!! Yes it makes sense now. His books were much more easier to make scenes in my head than other books.
Same
“How do you ‘accidentally’ kill a nobleman in his own mansion?”
“With a dagger to the chest,” Kelsier said lightly. “Or rather, a pair of them. It never hurts to be cautious.”
Dockson rolled his eyes.
^^^best line. It somehow conveys their entire character in 3 or 4 sentences.
Well it conveys their entire dynamic in a few words... Kelsier is a really layered character
...how does this conevey "their" character? It conveys one at best and it really doesnt...
@@hitzkooler15 as the comment above said, dynamic is a better word to use.
In only a few sentences it conveys:
-Kelsier hates Nobles
-Kelsier is sarcastic and charismatic
-Dockson puts up with what Kelsier does
-This is normal for Kelsier
Once again, a very simplified character and their dynamic are explained in those sentences. The comment above was definitely right about how Kelsier is a complex character and you’re right that no character can be explained in only a sentence, but if there are any four sentences in the book that could get Kelsier and Dockson’s attitude down to the tee, those would be it imo.
@@hitzkooler15 I mean its a small exchange from a 600 page book haha
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
i literally dont even think of his writing as im reading, it really does feel invisible to me - this breakdown was 10/10, where were u when i was still in school plz?
Probably trying to learn how to analyze Sanderson's writing style 😂😁
@@voices4oppressed hah, nice one
The explanation of the gerund is accurate, but the examples used are present participles, not gerunds. "they fell, dropping like skyeels"
I paused during the gerund section to find this comment. Thank you! Otherwise excellent analysis.
I was going to comment this.
An example of a gerund would be, "Was the TH-camr offended by your *pointing* out his error?"
gerunds are like drumming
Came here for this
@@chernobub5629 thats a good saying
Brandon Sanderson's writing style is a special effect. When it works well, you don’t even notice it's there. When it's awkward or clumsy, you notice it immediately.
After all the times people mention "but his writing style is really simple", it's been time someone made a video like this. And boy, was it a good video, instantsub!
Thanks!! And welcome to the channel :)
The whole point of the video is how simple his writing style is, though.
His writing style is simple though? That's the point.
This is a fantastic analysis. I've always thought that his style matches the stories he wants to tell very well, in that it helps him make his worlds seem accessible and grounded to the reader despite them being so different from our own in many cases. It really helps close the narrative distance and lets the readers imagine his worlds as actual places.
Thanks! And absolutely, the vastness of the narrative feels way more intimate due to his style
I love this analysis. Accessible and Contemporary is a style in and of itself. No style IS a style. When the world and its inhabitants are already quite alien that readers sometimes go back to read through passages for a better understanding, writing the way Sanderson does helps keep up the pacing and flow as well as lowering the learning curve required to enjoy the story. It's a story for both the casual and the dedicated readers.
Not really. I find myself rather wanting as someone who doesn’t consider himself to be “hardcore.” I’d rather get a book with more interesting language being used.
A style is a set of choices. He's made choices therefore he has a style.
It's interesting, but what you've identified here-gerunds, em dashes, clear prose, metaphors used in reverse to world build-are actually the basic building blocks that most fantasy authors use. I think that's how he achieves his pane of glass style... by using the stylistic elements that readers of the genre are already expecting to see.
While gerunds and em dashes are popular across all fiction right now (parenthesis having become much less trendy since Strunk and White wrote the Elements of Style), I think the clear prose and reverse metaphors are especially common in fantasy.
For the clear prose, this is usually how I see it taught. In literary fiction, you can say that the bus was a cat, slinking between the cars as it dove down a darkened alleyway. But in fantasy, the bus could literally be a cat, so a simile or clear prose is needed. If you rely on the less clear way you'd use in other genres, it's unclear what's an image and what's a fact of the world.
And the reverse metaphor is something I'm particularly fond of, though it probably has some fancy, official name? But like you said: we know what arrows are, but we don't know what a sky eel is. So the metaphor is actually there for the sky eel world building.
Anyways, fun video =] Thank you for making it.
I think you have a point. I've read a few fantasy novels and they seem to share very similar sentence and paragraph structures. Not all authors are like this, mind you, but a similarity nonetheless. Chao
lol that point about how a bus could literally be a cat so you need to be careful. Never thought of that before but you're so right, it makes certain more imagistic and metaphorical writing styles much more challenging to pull off
@@henrykramer365 well it depends on the context of the world. in a grounded epic fantasy with a hard rational magic system that is very self contained, such a description would be perfectly fine (not exactly this one ofc, buses won't exist)
One thing I love about Brandon's writing is how POV plays a subtle yet impactful way he writes a chapter/section despite it being in third person. It's easier to notice in something like Stormlight Archive when there's a lot of diverse POVs to contrast with each other. This is beautiful illustrated in the fact that we see Gavilar's death from four (and soon to be five) different POVs. What Szeth, Jasnah, Eshonai, and Navani all notice something different which helps fill in the gaps of what happened that night but it also gives each of the prologues personality.
What I especially love is that since you see the exact same night at the start of each book, you can fill in gaps simply using information from the previous book. For example, Dalinar's drinking problem inadvertently leaves Gavilar without the Blackthorn to take down Szeth, therefore causing his death. We don't know why he has that problem until Oathbringer, so when you read Navani's version of events, you know why Dalinar is drinking himself into a stupor. On top of that, each version of events doesn't feel "incomplete", insofar that you don't feel like you need someone else's perspective to figure out what happened (except for Gavilar's perspective, which is in a way one of the central mysteries of TSA). For example, reading through Szeth's perspective feels very complete, despite it being the introduction to the world of Roshar. You don't feel like you need to know what the king's brother or the queen were doing, because the informal you've been given makes them seem unimportant to the scene.
Great analysis. His prose is simplistic to the point of unforgettability. I have no desire to reread anything he writes; in one ear and out the other.
He’s probably the first writer to make me think that characters in fantasy were real people. Probably because they talk in simple prose. I recall being so annoyed at Aragorn for talking a paragraph to apologize for walking fast. I love Tolkien, but no one talks like that.
Hahaha yeah, I completely agree. Fantasy is fantasy -- characters don't have to all talk like LOTR! No problem if they do, but it's certainly refreshing when they don't
Not in this time, true.
Now I feel the complete opposite. Sanderson's modern-day American colloquial dialogue often throws me out of the story.
@@TomorrowWeLive I suppose there is no reason for them to speak in contemporary English. But since this is a fantasy world, there is no reason for them to speak Middle or Edwardian English either. Technically they speak their native tongue in whatever is the contemporary speech. Sanderson is just translating into whatever would make the most sense to his reader. Maybe you could ask for a new translation?
@@MeMySkirtandI Dont get me wrong i like Sanderson, he is good at worldbuilding, plot twists and magic systems but his dialogues are really not good compared to f.e. Joe Abercrombie or Robin Hobb.
No shields for them is also a pretty decent foreshadowing that I hadn’t caught before
These nitty gritty explorations on the prose are saving my goddamned life.
Read a lot of Sanderson's books and was never able to pinpoint how he writes with such a great pace in these massive novels - your analysis answered that question and then some - very well done!!
Thank you!
I think his style is about as invisible as it could be. He's one of the few authors that almost immediately makes the story play out like a movie in my head, whereas it usually takes me a hundred pages or more to get into the rhythm of someone else's style.
Yeah it's always very clear and there's such a flow to it. Stephen King's another writer like that, I think. Isaac Asimov in some ways too.
“Raised an eyebrow.” If I have to read that phrase one more time I just might lose it…
Honest to god. How many people do you meet in real life that consciously raise ONE eyebrow to emphasize disbelief or confusion?
Same with "rolled their eyes." lookin' at you, Warbreaker...
This is probably the best and fair analysis of Sanderson style. I'm just making my way back here after the wired hit piece.
Remember when Jake single handedly made orange his brand?? Now I only see that color and think of your channel. I loved watching this too, I love Sanderson's writing and I've literally only read The Final Empire. His writing style is SO accessible and I appreciate that so much, because fantasy writers can be so dense...and heavy in their writing. And that can make them seem scary and people new to the adult fantasy genre can get skittish. Sanderson is such a warm welcome to the fantasy genre. What a fantastic analysis.
The Brand is Strong
Hahahahahahaa orange was such a random choice. I used it in my first thumbnail and my wife was like "now that's your color." Um...okay? Also I agree with you, Fantasy can be so intimidating. I think Brandon's style is so focused on clarity that the world doesn't feel too bizarre (even though it is). Thanks Rachael :)
I've read fantasy my whole life; never really thought of that before. His prose seems simple and barren to me, (I don't mean to sound insulting) but that's simply because my personal preference IS gorgeous descriptions. But accessibility is a valid/good point...
I think his book sizes are more inaccessible than his writing style lol. Personal preference ofc
This makes me want to actually read Words of Radiance. I’ve been putting it off for such a long time. I remember really enjoying how easily Way of Kings flowed as if it weren’t 1000 pages.
Oh good! I prefer Words of Radiance to WoK much more because it had a better pace
@@ManCarryingThing And some many awesome and goosebump inducing scenes! (A must read!)
WoR was a blast. So much faster paced than TWoK. Still my favorite Stormlight book!
WoR is probably my favorite of the 4 books so far!
WoR has one of the best written scenes in a book that I have read. Honestly I dont know which book i preferred more, they are both supremely excellent and an aspiring writers goldmine. Have yet to read oathbringer!
I've said a couple of times in my reviews that Sanderson's writing style is characterised by its absence, he uses it as an effective way to get the story from his wonderful brain into yours, but man you put it way more eloquently! More videos like this!
Amazing analysis!!
Thank you!
Answering the question of what we thought of his style: My friend and I are currently reading through the Stormlight Archive as my reintroduction into the Fantasy genre, and for the first 1.5 books ( we're on book 3 now) his writing made reading the story really difficult for me. I think the inclusion of the "clear glass" metaphor is apt here, because his writing felt like looking at the events through a TV screen, and a lot of the plot devices he eventually employs were telegraphed in his scene constructions. Not a bad choice flat out, but one I struggled to connect with. My reading partner definitely heard the nuances of that struggle from me at least weekly. 😅
I think this video really helps detail and name some of the things that I found difficult to connect with, but more in the summation of its parts: the telling of the story is in sequence, but it didn't feel tactile for the first 2 books: the sights were there, but no smells or sounds or textures (even though there was food and thunder and crem). I wish I knew what crem felt like, or what the city of Jah Kaved (or Alethkar) smelled like.
His writing is bland af
I’m a fan of every single one of these writing tactics, and I think all of it together makes a book that much more accessible and enjoyable to the masses. Well done! Would love to see more of these :o)
For me, a big part of the joy of writing is in the clever ways that the author can use language and bend it to their purposes. But I'm very much a prose guy, I *want* to be able to appreciate the artistry of the language itself, like poetry. I know not everyone cares so much about that and just wants to be told a story. It's just for me, an artful simile or metaphor is in itself a thing of considerable beauty, or can be if done well. Of course I can still appreciate a story without flowery language, but it's just a different kind of appreciation and to me at least, feels more empty.
I do really like the use of em dashes by modern writers, though. They can also quite effectively replace a semicolon. They're just great for maintaining a sort of visual clarity while still allowing for more complex or convoluted sentence structures to be employed.
I'm not a poetry guy, nor care that much about prose, but I appreciate that some do find these elements crucial for a good read. What pulls me out of a story, would be flowery speech or other embellishments that conflict with my own thoughts. I think lots of people like that conflict. It challenges them and gives them more to think about. You are right, a good story told is important to me.
It's escapism that I find the most compelling - Sanderson open the cage and pushes me out.
I have yet, to meet anyone that enjoys the exact same authors or books as I do. Sanderson is a problem, for some because he is very popular and loved by many, while his prose lacks the substance of a truly great writer. I'm not one that thinks like this. Sanderson writes clear and concise prose that conveys the story he wants to tell.
I can't believe people say Brando Sando has no style, his blazer graphic tee combo is iconic
Great video. Really interesting breakdown. From skimming the comments I don’t think this will be a popular opinion but here goes.
I found Sanderson through his lectures online and think he’s got a lot of great advice for writers. So last summer I tried to read Mistborn. His style isn’t for me.
Growing up, the first author that really got his hooks into me was Stephen King, and I still prefer elements of his style over others.
Clarity is great, and I love a good story, but having evocative and compelling language is important to me, and I need an author’s voice to make a story pop and bring a book up from something that is fast food into something that is memorable. To me, that’s one of the best things books have going for them over movies and tv. And when you distill things down to such a “non-style”, you are watering down the medium into its most palatable and losing a lot of the color and style that makes me prefer reading a great story over experiencing it some other way.
That said, and this is almost its own video-I can see how this style works particularly well for audio. Some of my favorite books to read are hard to follow and just don’t work as audio and I’d be interested in how audio is changing the way people write.
Exactly.
For me it is like reading LOTR and Percy Jackson.
Percy Jackson has a great story and it is super easy to read. But I don't fell like reading it again because the only think that matters is the story and those I tend to never forget, even with the great amount of foreshadowing.
(I LOVE IT THOUGH, DON'T GE ME WRONG)
LOTR on the other hand has a amazing slow prose, super detailed. Middle-earth feels alive and if tou give me the map I can show you the exact path the fellowship took.
I'm also always thinking about the past of the middle-earth and its future too.
Will elfs return ever again?
Man, the dwarf used to be great.
Etc.
Sorry for my english.
@@abraaomitichon7868 I feel the same way
@@abraaomitichon7868 and your English is fine
His style really makes epic fantasy faaaaar more approachable.
I just remember reading "Shallan exclaimed!" quite a lot.
I love love love his style, I've been talking to people complaining about the "plainness" and I always wanted to argue for his style but what I needed is literally this :D thank you for putting my feels into world 😁
I suspect that the several quick ‘n short edits when telling the viewer how BrandoSando distills the prose down to its, “essential stuff,” was a design choice.
This is a tremendous breakdown of his prose. I would say Brandon writes practically at all times depending on what his scenes need.
And in the climaxes he uses the sentence fragments, em dashes, and also shortened POVs to be evocative without being flowery.
This is the 1st video uploaded after I'd subscribed and it makes me happy I did :)
That's so nice to hear! Thanks for stopping by
Sanderson's prose has its qualities, anonymity among them, and it often reminds me of Stephen King: everyday language wherever nothing more is required. That being said, despite my respect and love for their stories they are among the few A-list authors whose prose pulls me out of the story. This is of course highly subjective, but I would rather have an author writing beautifully and causing me to stop and admire a phrase or passage than one who is a tad repetitive, ham-fisted or simply too everyday and casual.
The problem with being too casual is that this is literature. Not making use of the breadth and depth of the language you’re writing in is like a filmmaker not using any cinematography that isn’t shot-reverse shot.
If the language is so unimportant to you, why are you writing a book and not a screenplay?
@@theatheistbear3117 Probably because some stories would just be impossible to produce as a film or tv show from a budget or technical standpoint. I agree with you though, I think prose should be a priority for any fiction writer because it can enhance the experience so much and is literally the language of your medium. Your comparison to a director not utilising cinematography well is very apt. There is a difference between simple prose and basic prose.
Love this.
Would love to see more writing style analysis videos.
I recently discovered that aphantasia is a thing, and I definitely have it. I think that's why I, historically, have preferred non-fiction reading to fiction. So many countless times I've found myself reading pages and pages of descriptions and metaphors asking myself "why are you wasting my time? We're in X-location and X-characters are here doing X-thing to move the narrative or themes along. That's enough. I don't need all this flowery language to explain things I can't picture anyway." For this reason, I found myself really enjoying Sanderson's writing. You could write about the endless expanse of something, or you could just say there's a lot of something. Either way, my brain processes it the same way, so I appreciate the efficiency of his prose.
Having learned that most people actually do create literal pictures in their heads, though? Now I understand why so much fiction is the way it is, and why "workmanlike prose" is so looked-down on. I always assumed that "painting a picture for the reader" was just a dumb, meaningless metaphor for the pretentious. But since most people literally can have that done for them, of course the normal reader wants lots of descriptions and metaphors. Of course they prefer it that way.
Anyway, all that is to say that I now know why I like Sanderson so much, and why many don't.
YOU SHOULD DO MORE OF THESE for different authors
it was so interesting + helpful even
It is possible to write an epic fantasy with a lyrical style. Sanderson puts the reader into such an "alien" milieu, with so many novel concepts and characters, that, by necessity, he needs to keep things clear. His direct lucid style is a feature, not a bug, to make sure readers don't get confused.
To me, this is video is by far the best analysis I've seen of Brandon's Style.
The others I've seen tend to strike me as mischaracterizations of the intent and effect he's going for; not only is he not trying to be Rothfuss or, like, James Joyce or something-if he were, he would not be able to produce the kinds of experiences that he's going for.
He is not in the poeticism business - he's in the "showing you an engaging fantasy world" business. If he constantly bombarded the reader with headscratchy, overengineered sentences that require the reader to stop and mentally unpack them to truly savour how super extra poignant they might be "if ya really think about it", then he would just be getting in his own way.
It's insane to me that most videos looking at his prose make the assumption that flowery zinger writing is somehow better than going for something uncomplicated but effective that inherently comes with benefits like fast pace, great conveyance, high immersion. Literally more story per minute you spend reading.
Aren't those present participles, rather than gerunds? As you point out, they look the same, but these -ing words that BranSan uses are part of participle phrases that modify nouns. I've found at least one source that identifies them as gerunds, but more that identify them as participles, like this one: owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/mechanics/gerunds_participles_and_infinitives/participles.html
Anyway, that doesn't really matter. Love this video! Great analysis. As someone who digests Sando-boy mainly through audiobooks, I appreciate that his style makes it sound like Michael Kramer is just casually telling me a story.
Great talk and explanation about sanderson's writing style! Sometimes I feel like he over explains a little bit. In your example, they are in the heat of battle, and the character is thinking about who owns the land and why the battle is happening rather than staying alive. Sometimes it pulls me out of the moment a bit. However, I usually prefer that he does this so we know what's going on and why it's going on.
Thanks! I think one of his weaknesses is not trusting the reader enough. He repeats exposition over and over, and I agree, it can pull me out of the story sometimes
@@ManCarryingThing it's true he repeats himself a lot but i've often found myself being like shit i really had forgotten about this so it does help to have a reminder from time to time, especially in-between books
As a reader who generally reads stuff that has an emphasis on the prose or includes some formal experimentation, it was a struggle to get through the Mistborn trilogy.
My basic problem is that the writing is so intensely repetitive. Even these strategies you described are ones he uses ALL the time and, even worse, it's very noticeable and not even done very well. Even something like what you describe as 'gerunds' is something he does on nearly every page. And I would argue it's not even a good strategy. Sure that type of sentence structure can be "economical" but it's also really easy and really boring and really frustrating to read a hundred times a book.
And maybe this would be fine if the plot and characters were solid but I think the simple, clunky, boring prose actually hinders characterization as well as plot development. To me it's not clear glass writing so much as foggy glass writing. There's no detail, and the subtext is spelled out so I just can't see much.
Even in the one example he gave Sanderson uses the word "arrows" six times in the same paragraph and "behind him" twice in two very similar, almost adjacent sentences to describe where they are landing. It's not a stylistic choice either, its's just repetition. It's the complete opposite of efficient or economical. It seems to me that all this talk about "glass-like" or "invisible" prose is an attempt to cover up his lack of style or at least an attempt at making it seem more intentional than it actually is.
Any artists style is essentially just a masking of their short comings. (Or an emphasis on their stengths.) It might not speak to you personally but that doesn't make it bad per se.
@@amysteriousviewer3772
You haven't really said anything except that you personally don't like repetition.
@@GlacialScion I didn't say that I dislike repetition per-se, I dislike repetition without any stylistic intention. Sanderson is very guilty of this not just with individual words but entire phrases and it's considered a very amateur "mistake" or at least poor style. I have other problems with his prose as well but I brought up the repetition specifically because it completely deflates the argument that Sanderson is "efficient" or "economical". Using the same noun six times in a single paragraph to describe the same object is not what I would call an efficient or economical use of language.
Thank you for taking the time to put into words just how weak Sanderson's prose is. These days folks are unable to distinguish truly economical prose from unresourceful, repetitive hogwash. In Warbreaker, for example, every time a character is frustrated they grit their teeth. It happens over twenty times, some even within the span of two or three pages.
Reading is like driving on a road. Sanderson is a straight, flat road. It isn't a bad thing. It gets you to where you're going without much input on your part.
If I recall correctly, the first time in Final Empire that was learn the plants are brown/there are no flowers is during dialogue between Vin and Kelsier (if it was mentioned previously, I missed). Regardless of my recall, I think these exchanges show such a mastery of world-building and exposition. During the conversation, Kelsier does not hamfistedly mention that the plants are brown; it starts as a natural conversation, wherein you learn a super important fact about the world. Sanderson excels at this more than almost any other fantasy/sci-fi author I’ve ever read. Even in simply describing the arc of the arrows, he provides world building effortlessly. It makes a very complex world easier to digest
0:39 *randomly sees Brandon wearing a hat* Brandon is Wayne confirmed!
And Brandon/Mat as well (Which is what he was going for at the time :) Wonder if Mat inspired Wayne in some ways)
Insinuating that Brandon is a kleptomaniac?
I really enjoyed this breakdown. As I am currently reading LOTR and Stormlight side by side, the differences between the window and the stained glass style stand out to me and I think both have their pros and cons. There is something about reading poetic prose that is a beautiful experience in my opinion. To both be immersed in the story while also appreciating the literature for literature's sake is wonderful, howbeit difficult. This is a well used example but the sentence "not idly do the leaves of lorien fall," just looks, sounds and feels right, however endless pages of location description can take away from the march of the plot. The one thing about Sanderson's writing that I think he has difficulty accomplishing is remaining modern, and simple in his prose as you explained while also maintaining the sense of epic fantasy. In general, I think he sacrifices the richness of Shakespearian English for modern language for practical reasons, however, in those pinnacle moments of pure epicness, he can't help but be drawn back into it. Take for example this line by Syl as she is reunited with Kaladin in Words of Radiance: _“Kaladin!” Syl’s voice. “Stretch forth _*_thy_*_ hand!”_ I think there is a reason why he chooses to use the arachaic second person possessive pronoun here, but for me, it came across as a little out of place. Maybe, he explains these choices somewhere else, but I do not envy him, because it's a fine line to tow! Anyways, I really appreciate his writing no matter what! Thanks for the video again!
I’ve never really been a fan of Brandon Sanderson and I’ve been avoiding reading the Stormlight Archives as a result, just because it would be such a massive time commitment to something I’m not passionate about - and one of my biggest concerns has been his prose.
However, this review helped me understand his style a lot more clearly and I can appreciate (though I still don’t love) his more economic, non-intrusive, and direct writing style. I respect that those are intentional choices, rather than evidence of a lack of skill or creative vision. I think someday I’ll try to give the series a go!
I think it might be worth mentioning that the snippet you're looking at is an action sequence--the language necessarily simplifies and speeds up to keep the energy of the scene up. That's not to say that BrandoSando doesn't use the style a lot, but I think it probably has a lot to do with the fact that he writes a ton of high energy action scenes :b It's how he keeps up the breakneck pace of these monstrous books.
This is great, could make it your thing to delve into authors’ styles
Thanks!
This is some of the highest quality analysis I've seen on Fantasy booktube -- would love more videos like it!
Thank you!
Only just had this recommended, but I think this video is fantastic, mate.
Thanks luke! that means a lot coming from you
I would recommend reading some Peter V. Brett for another example of someone with good and transparent prose. I'm never sure which I like better, prose that doesn't get in the way or prose like Anna Spark Smith's where it's over the top, but poetic and dripping with emotion. Fantastic video btw.
Thanks David! I've never read any Peter V. Brett -- but I find myself often asking myself the same question. Prose that is dripping with emotion, or that is clear and simple. The only writer I can think of who writes with a simple style yet drips with emotion is Hemingway
I love Brandons style. I also try to write like that.
The kindest thing you can say about Brandon Sanderson’s writing is that there’s certainly a lot of it
4:40 I view em dash as a replacement for the word "Which".
A landlord was encroching on Brightlord Amaram's territory, which was the ultimately the land owned by Highprince Sadeas.
The term "Which was" just gets replaced by a em dash, also prompting a sentence structure change obviously.
In this book I like Sanderson’s style when he’s writing about the war camps and bridge runs. Can’t get enough of that intensity. The rest of the book is the time spent waiting for the next intense scene.
Fantastic analysis! Even though I'm not a huge fan of his writing style, as I generally prefer something a little bit more poetic...I do appreciate how simple it is. Shipwrecked Library made a great point on how accessible his writing is. So true. One of the reason's Sanderson is so accessible is because his writing is easy to access for pretty much every level of reader. Also, I love an em dash too.
This is very interesting, especially because, after growing up on Tolkien, I started reading the Stormlight Archive right as I started serious work on my own book. As I'm chugging through my own story, I've found a lot of Sanderson's style elements popping up in my writing. I already use an unholy number of em-dashes, but I've found myself copying his technique in writing internal dialogue, and even using "storms" as a placeholder curse.
Would love to see more of these for other authors!
Good analysis. One additional element of his style not discussed here is his use of point of view. Not only does it really help enhance the storytelling, exposition, and world-building, but the way the prose style changes to match the character is not only enlightening, but also fun and really breaks up what could otherwise become monotonous (Wayne's chapters from the 2nd Mistborn trilogy stand out in my mind).
But I did not find Sanderson's style to be invisible. I almost quit reading my first Sanderson novel (Way of Kings) halfway through because I found his style annoying and distracting. I think it had a lot to do with all the sentence fragments, which for me felt unnatural and awkward in a formal prose context that was clearly not modern-day USA. It was kind of like watching Kevin Costner play Robin Hood with his American accent. I've since come around, of course, and now appreciate his style for what it is, or at least for what he is striving for.
Ironically, you have the Mother of All Gerunds sitting on the shelf right behind you - The Shining.
Sanderson is the epitome for "Simple but effective"
Love this type of analytical video!!
Very insightful contents you got my man!!!
Will definitely be sticking here mate 😂
I am so excited to talk about this!! I am someone who prefers the artistry of writing over what Sanderson referred to as the craftsmanship. I really love abstract writing that makes me think and use my brain to try and understand what's going on. When I am reading a Sanderson, I am typically incredibly annoyed by his writing during the first 200-300 pages. Once I get fully immersed into the story I can appreciate the utilitarianism, but for the first big chunk I feel like I'm having my hand held and being talked down too. I agree with your assement that it is not an invisible writing style because if it were I wouldn't get as annoyed with it as I do 😂
I often refer to this as a lack of subtlety. Sometimes he takes his desire to be transparent over the top and ends up overexplaining things. I understand it's benefits, but for my personal taste it doesn't always jive
I miss this videos.
Just starting mistborn, my first foray. He comes across as Brandon Sanderson. A chatty, charismatic American talking to college students about an awesome fantasy world.
I think this video might have helped me get over that so i can enjoy the story
Interesting analysis of his language style. I'm reading "Edgedancer", the first book of Sanderson's I've tried, I find some of the adjectives and metaphors used by the central character, Lift, take me out of the story, like when she says "I'm so storming pure I practically belch rainbows."
Thank you -- I can see what you mean about Lift. Often her dialgue/thoughts feel a little TOO modern. However I like that he keeps us in her pov so strongly
That might he because Edgedancer us a novella set in the Stormlight Archive and is supposed to be read after you've read book 2. Jumping straight into Roshar via Edgedancer prolly wasn't the best.
Nooo, why are you reading Edgedancer first?? Edgedancer is set after the second book in the Stormlight Archive, it's somewhat the 2.5th book in the series.
@@katto1937 I appreciate it is not the ideal place to start with Sanderson but it was the cheapest of his books on Kindle.
@@jimsbooksreadingandstuff warbreaker is available for free on Sanderson's website ;)
I initially found his prose kind of clunky, especially coming to his books right after reading kingkiller chronicle, but knowing it's an intentional choice is really cool. And honestly, after reading thousands of pages of stormlight, I've grown kind of fond of it.
Problem is not getting used to it after thousands of pages, but getting used to it early enough so that one can read thousands of pages without getting turned off from the books, which happens to most people who come from other fantasy series with actual quality prose
I'd love to see you do a whole series on writing styles of different fantasy authors. You have some good insights. May I request you do Patrick Rothfuss?
Yes plz......
I think it usually does feel invisible to me, with the exception of The Emperor's Soul and the Shadows... Forest... Hell... I can't remember the name of that one lol. Those felt like the prose was a bit more of a feature than just a backdrop. For everything else that I've read from him, the writing does basically disappear for me, which feels very transportive. I almost feel like I'm in a video game for a lot of it, which isn't maybe a direct compliment, but is meant as one.
You just earned a new subscriber. Excellent work
Thanks!
If you're wanting a more academic way to talk about the effect of the gerunds, they create a sense of deictic proximity. Deixis refers to the 'closeness' of a narrator. Present 1st person feels 'closer' than past 3rd person, even if they convey the same information.
The biggest thing I think Sanderson does is write using language that the narrating character would use. So, when Dalinar narrates, you get lots of war and royalty type words, while with Cenn, it uses very short, basic words that a scared little boy would use.
Up-front apology for the grammar nitpicking, but:
Those are mostly not actually gerunds. They’re gerunds when they (or their clause) function as nouns, such as: “Analyzing style is hard” (“Analyzing style” functions as a noun there).
Most of the examples are present participles, they function more or less as adjectives.
Ok, nitpick over. Great video! :)
As much as I like your skits, I somehow like these kind of serious videos more.
Don't read Sanderson, but your breakdown reminded me of my favorite author Vonnegut.
I also feel like his use of those sentence fragments and repetition helps to make key moments feel like they’re moving slower.
The example of “But not Kaladin’s squad. No shields for them.” Makes me feel briefly like I’m in the head of this scared kid, paused for a moment in time just before the arrows fall upon the army.
This video was amazing! More like this would be great. Addicted to your videos :)
Thank you! That's awesome to hear
I am not good at picking up style but what I appreciate from Sanderson style of writing, what was mentioned in the video, is that it is very easy to understand and approach. Even with his stormlight archive series which are huge epic fantasy stories with ton of characters and cultures, it is always easy to pick up and read. There is a ton of information but it is easy to follow.
While for example the wheel of time or the first law trilogy, it can sometimes get a bit much too follow and reading them when tired is a challenge. There both great series, and sometimes I miss the added complexity in Sanderson books, but less approachable then for example the stormlight archives.
His style leans towards technical and business writing, which needs to be clear to be understandable. As more people have moved into desk jobs and white collar jobs, this is closer to the prose they would see and use at work.
As much as I hate Sanderson's characters, I really appreciate how easy to read his prose is.
This channel gonna blow up.
It should be noted that you can write with crystal clear clarity and still be artful. Cormac McCarthy is an extreme example. Mind you, his prose requires a mature reader (he doesn't write for the 8th-grade-education crowd), but his prose is crystal clear, yet jaw-droppingly beautiful.
Hemingway is probably the poster child of easy to digest prose, but also so artfully crafted.
There are so many examples. Of course, these examples are top tier writers, so it's unfair to use them as examples perhaps, but they serve to drive home the point: you don't have to sacrifice artfulness to achieve clarity.
feel dumb commenting on a pretty old video, but I would love to hear your take on Gene Wolfe. Seems like almost the inverse of Sanderson, or maybe a mastery in a completely different set of skills
Great video! As someone who has only read the first Mistborn so far, Sanderson's prose was his biggest weakness to me personally (I tore it apart in my Goodreads review lol), and the main thing keeping me from jumping right into Wells of Ascension. But it does seem to accomplish his intent, and I can see how it would appeal to others :)
I have that shirt! Also-- fantastic video!
Thanks!
personally i think the point is not to be invisible, but to be transparent
you can see a window if you focus on it, but you can also see through it as if it isn't there
however the stained glass prose of other authors can sometimes feel like you're having to squint through the writer's blocks of text to actually see the world they're presenting
I honestly think that this has more to do with the literacy of the average person having dropped in quantity rather than an issue with most of the writing.
I liked this analysis very much. I've read about 300 pages of the way of kings, and the last 2 books were the name of the wind and the wise man's fear, so I was accustomed to a more poetic prose (which i absolutely loved). So didn't know what to think about Sanderson's style. I did think it was simplistic (in a bad way), so I searched online to find opinions and explanations. I didn't like the glass vs stained window glass at all, because I didn't think it applied to Sanderson vs Rothfuss, for example. Writing in a simple way doesn't mean that you simply see the image clearer. The flowery nature of the kingkiller chronicles books is precisely what forms a striking image in my head. I don't see it diffused, but enhanced. So I was disappointed with the explanations I found. But the explanation given in this video is different from the rest and it has convinced me that his style isn't simple in a bad way. It isn't just simple either. It's simple with purpose. That everyday nature of his writing style does give importance and impact to sentence (like "But not Kaladan's squad. No shields for them"). It's not flowery, but it has substance in the way it's written and it's fun to read. Simple would've been "Amaran's soldiers raised shileds. Kaladin's squad didn't have shields. Cenn screamed." So I wouldn't say it's simple. I'd say it's everyday-like. But it's full of substance.
First comment!!! Have been waiting for this all day!
Hhahaha XD
Thank you very much for your breakdown. It's really helpful.
Man I know this is late but I liked the beginning of Mistborn (cause it's all I red from him that I remember being his). It is very easy to get sucked into those worlds because of the language which also makes it easier to get into the world that he's crafted. I gotta finish that series.
I think of good prose as being fireworks vs daylight. Fireworks are beautiful, artful, impressive, and even awe inspiring, but daylight is much better for getting somewhere fast.
good point
I remember in the way of kings he goes overly detailed into descriptions of what characters are wearing, something I didn't very much enjoy. I'm glad that it reduces a bit in the later books
Loved the analysis! Keep it up
Appreciate it!