Constructive Criticism

[Tino Didriksen]

Spoiler warning: Do not proceed unless you have read these books:
- Mistborn
- Mistborn 2
- Elantris
- Warbreaker

Incidentally, those are the same books that I've read, and in that order. I have not yet read Mistborn 3 nor any of Brandon Sanderson's other books, so take that into consideration. And now on with the meat...

I read those four books in a few weeks during the summer of 2008, and I got the nagging feeling that they are the same single story written in four different settings. Variations on a theme, with that theme shining through a bit too strongly, especially in the endings of the books.

The baseline story is:
- Protagonist is ripped from their known world into a whole different world they knew nothing of, and have to adjust to that. Character development and discovery of previously unknown powers.
- There is a known antagonist from the very start, and towards the ending a careful plan is formulated to deal with this antagonist.
- That plan is shattered by a betrayal - not merely a few setbacks to overcome, but totally ruined with no hope of winning.
- A miracle occurs and the good guys win.
- Oh, and the original antagonist isn't really the main one.

As I said above, especially the endings of all those books is straight plan-betrayal-miracle. I already noticed these patterns after I read Mistborn 2, got the nagging feelings of repetition during reading Elantris, and then confirmed them by reading Warbreaker. One could say this pattern is true of most books, but in reading those it was so blatantly spelled out that I had to get it out of my system...

I want to point out that they are all great books and rich universes. I especially love Elantris' rune magic system.
I just want to see a different story set in each universe instead of the same one in four different universes.

[little wilson]

*Be warned: There are Harry Potter 7 spoilers in this post.* If you have not read Deathly Hallows and want to...be prepared to skip certain sections...Unless you're okay with learning the intricacies behind a certain character's death (and it shouldn't really be surprising that this character was slated to die, considering who it is....and no. I don't mean HP himself (although I did want him to die, but I digress)).

Anyway. First, Brandon is what I would call more of an "epic writer". The basic plotline you have previously outlined is an "epic" plotline. You'll find the same thing in books like the Belgariad, Harry Potter, and countless others.

Second, all those books take place in the SAME universe. Just different worlds. Hoid is the sure indicator.

Another thing is that the ending "plan-betrayal-miracle" doesn't apply to FE. Yes, there is a plan. No, there is not a betrayal. And there is kind of a miracle. It's a miracle that Kelsier planned, but a miracle nonetheless....Well, Kelsier planned the uprising of the skaa, and the fall of nobles, but he didn't really plan for the death of the LR, even if he gave Vin that task. THAT was the miracle. That they were actually able to take him down. But the same is true of Harry Potter. *HP spoilers next* Harry killing Voldemort? With one spell? Unexpected to say the least. Miraculous, I would say. Obviously Voldemort was going to die. Same with the Lord Ruler. The only real question was how it would happen. Where Voldie's death was anticlimactic, TLR's death was....well. Epic.

Anyway. I didn't notice any overlying plotline to all those books. Yes, there are similarities, but I see those similarities as being the epic-ness that Brandon uses. It's a slightly twisted version of the Hero's Journey. And even if Brandon does use the same basic plotline, he's a heck of a lot better at it than David Eddings is. I love Eddings, but the Belgariad and the Elenium and both of their respective sequel series have striking similarities. I personally don't see it nearly so much in Brandon's work.

[Reaves]

First of all thanks for taking the time to visit the forums and post what you think.

Brandon himself has said that he does actually explore some of the same themes from different angles in his books. For example, godhood. In Elantris, the gods are fallen, they've lost the powers of the gods. In Warbreaker, the Returned are worshipped as gods but Lightbringer Lightsong doesn't believe he should be a god. And in Mistborn...well, I'll let you finish the series 

I can kinda see the pattern you are talking about. However, I agree with you; patterns like that are present in most books. Where would a book be without character development? Who wants to read a book where everything goes according to plan and there are no surprises? I don't think I'd ever say they are the same story in different settings. I hope you enjoy these books and keep on reading stuff by Sanderson!

[little wilson]

Brandon himself has said that he does actually explore some of the same themes from different angles in his books. For example, godhood. In Elantris, the gods are fallen, they've lost the powers of the gods. In Warbreaker, the Returned are worshipped as gods but Lightbringer doesn't believe he should be a god. And in Mistborn...well, I'll let you finish the series 

Oh, very good point, Reaves. Very good point. Only one problem. Isn't it Lightsong? It's been a while since I last read Warbreaker (I really need to read it again...), but I'm pretty sure his name was Lightsong....Although, I can kind of see how you got "Lightbringer", because....saying it (at least to me) it kina sounds like "Blushweaver"...at least the end of it because obviously "light" and blush" don't exactly sound the same.

[Hero of Ages]

And even if Brandon does use the same basic plotline, he's a heck of a lot better at it than David Eddings is. I love Eddings, but the Belgariad and the Elenium and both of their respective sequel series have striking similarities. I personally don't see it nearly so much in Brandon's work.

Amen to that.  I love Eddings too, but he has really only written 1 series (the Belgariad) 5 times (6 if you count his newest series The Elder Gods, which has a lot of major differences).  The Mallorean is just a rehash (with some admitted differences) of it with the same characters and the Elenium and Tamuli are a rehash with new characters.  So is the standalone Redemption of Althalus.  All were good, but EUOL does a much better job of using the "epic" plot line.

The stories are vastly different in all but the most wideranging items.The stories all have characters that are thrust into situations that are certainly not their element, but they adapt and overcome the obstacles.  Name a book where that storyline hasn't been followed.



And yes it is Lightsong.

[Tino Didriksen]

Another thing is that the ending "plan-betrayal-miracle" doesn't apply to FE. Yes, there is a plan. No, there is not a betrayal. And there is kind of a miracle. It's a miracle that Kelsier planned, but a miracle nonetheless.

I should rephrase that bit then...say "plan-collapse-miracle" - the grand scheme goes south invariably, without hope of winning, and then a miracle occurs. If the plan was merely set back with some new obstacles to overcome through the protagonists skills and cunning, that would be vastly different, but in all instances the plan is totally shattered with no hope of rescue and in steps deus ex machina. Feels a bit like building up a nice set of characters, only to then throw their accomplishments and growth out with the wind at the finale; let them handle the odds for once.

I completely agree that it's a time honored basic story, and Sanderson definetely knows how to write it in ways I'll keep reading (as soon as Amazon gets in gear). The worlds and magics are well crafted from the ground up.

[happyman]

I'll just say that you need to read Mistborn 3.  It's epic, but I don't think it follows all the same steps you give.

It has some elements, of course.  Without conflict and failure, there would be no story.

[little wilson]

Yeah. Agreed. It's the most epic of the three Mistborns, in my opinion. Of course, I generally talk about the trilogy as a whole with something like this, instead of each book separately....It's almost insane with how epic the whole story is....

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Tino, what do you think was the miracle in each book? What do you think was the betrayal in Final Empire? Unless you're talking about how Marsh betrayed the other inquisitors? No surprise at all, since he was a spy in the first place.

A miracle isn't a miracle if everything fits with the way everything has been explained to work in the world. The idea of deus ex machina is that that god comes out of nowhere and makes everything OK.

Elantris: I don't see any miracle. Unless you mean Raoden's drawing of the line? Foreshadowed. Or Hrathen's having a dahkor arm? Foreshadowed.

Final Empire: Maybe the drawing upon the mists was the miracle you're talking about? Yeah, that kind of came out of left field. In the original draft of the book it didn't happen; Vin just grabbed off the Lord Ruler's bracelets after she figured out they were feruchemical, and he aged rapidly and she killed him. Now, there is a reason for the 'drawing on the mists" thing, but it's not revealed until book 3. If you like, you can pretend it didn't happen in book 1.

Well of Ascension miracle: Are you talking about Elend getting healed and becoming a mistborn? That there was some way the mistborn were originally created was foreshadowed. Or are you talking about Vin figuring out how to control the koloss? Also foreshadowed.

Warbreaker: Miracles are built into the book from the start, so they're not a deus ex machina.

Betrayal is a tried and true part of fiction. Brandon specifically wrote Final Empire to not include any betrayal, even though it was built up from the start that Vin thought betrayal was inevitable. Also, in Well of Ascension TenSoon was the spy, but he didn't really hurt Vin and immediately turned to her side anyway (this was betraying his true master, of course, but...so?) As for the betrayal shattering the plan with no hope of winning, this only holds in Elantris and Warbreaker. In Well of Ascension they had no hope of winning the whole time and the betrayal didn't affect that. In Final Empire there was no betrayal, but the supposedly-shattering event of Kelsier's death was actually his plan to pull off victory and it worked.

Your "known antagonist" thing doesn't really hold true for Warbreaker unless you count the whole country's government as the known antagonist at the beginning, and they're only really the antagonist for Vivenna's story. In Elantris you could say Hrathen is the antagonist, but he's more the protagonist of his own story, and he has nothing to do with the underlying conflict from the prologue (why did the magic disappear?). In Well of Ascension, Straff and his army are the antagonists to arrive first on the scene, but it doesn't take long before multiple other antagonists chip in. Your statement only really holds true for Final Empire.

The "protagonist is ripped" plot; how does this apply to Well of Ascension? Elend has to learn political powers? Characters have to learn things in most stories out there.

I think the books are different enough from each other in both fundamentals and execution to all be entertaining.

[little wilson]

Plus, "the original antagonist isn't really the main one" doesn't hold true for any of the Mistborn's either. Counting HoA. In Warbreaker, I can see, assuming you're referring to Seb as being the original antagonist....Elantris I can kind of see too, except that it depends on whose pov you're referring to. If it's Hrathen's, I would say Dilaf was one of his antagonists. The others, though, Dilaf wasn't.

And Ook, I think the "miracle" Tino's meaning is the plan falls apart and miraculously everything works out....maybe. I could be wrong about that, but either way, I disagree (with Tino, not with Ookla--I agree with him). The bigger setbacks that happened were totally believable, and the way they were overcome was also believable according to how each character was developed to that point in each book.

And maybe I'm just easily entertained (actually....there's no 'maybe' about it...) but every single one of Brandon's books that I've read so far has been very good and much more unique than clichè.

[Reaves]

Plus, "the original antagonist isn't really the main one" doesn't hold true for any of the Mistborn's either.

deleted because of Mistborn 3 spoilers.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Yeah, the Lord Ruler does fit that description.

(And Tino is pretty clear in that he thinks all the plots are solved via deus ex machina.)

The more general idea of "the deeper conflict isn't what the protagonists started out thinking their conflict was" is very common in writing and is a good way to keep things interesting. If Brandon had taken the entire Mistborn trilogy to defeat the Lord Ruler, it wouldn't have been nearly as interesting as it turned out to be.

[little wilson]

If Brandon had taken the entire Mistborn trilogy to defeat the Lord Ruler, it wouldn't have been nearly as interesting as it turned out to be.

Nor as epic....

And now I'm a little sad that I just fell asleep for 3 hours. I missed Reaves comment. I think I know what he said though, and it's a good point. But that's looking at the entire trilogy as a whole with this argument, and I would hope that certain opinions would change as the facts come out in the open. And that certain fact that I'm alluding to doesn't change how tyrannical the Lord Ruler was....

[maxonennis]

- Protagonist is ripped from their known world into a whole different world they knew nothing of, and have to adjust to that. Character development and discovery of previously unknown powers.

Welcome to epic fantasy 

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Also, Warbreaker's magic system isn't much like that because the magic is something anyone can use, as long as they get enough breath.