Brandon Sanderson Hate Him or Read Him

[anatess2]

On 11/16/2017 at 9:04 AM, zil said:

If you don't like extremely creative magic systems, Brandon Sanderson is not for you.  Stand-alone books (not part of a series) is the place to start:

* Warbreaker (fun, IMO)

* Elantris (the first one I read - good stuff)

* The Emperor's Soul (same world as Elantris, but stand-alone; novella)

I have read these and enjoyed them and would recommend them as places to start.  Read the blurb and pick the one that sounds most interesting.

https://brandonsanderson.com/

...lists out his books by series, though it doesn't remove all confusion - I can only assume he's not OCD.

Ugh.  Now you tell me.  After I bought the first 3 books of Mistborn for my sons.

 

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

His writing is a lot dirtier than just about any book I normally read,

Wait, what???  I just got the first 3 Mistborn books for my 14 and 16 year olds!

@Carborendum, should I sequester the books?  My 16 year old has been reading the 1st one.  I'm fairly certain he's done with it and will be handing it to his younger brother soon...

Edited November 28, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

On 11/16/2017 at 11:26 AM, zil said:

Which is my point.  In 21 years, if I'm still alive, I'll have ~10 weeks of good reading to do.

If I'm not alive, I won't die ticked off that I didn't get to finish the series.

You haven't read Drizzt?  Salvatore is still whipping out books out of that one.  I've read the first book that came out when I was still a whipper snapper of a teen-ager.

Isamov did me in with his unfinished series.  Grrr right there. 

Seems like George Martin is about to do the same with the Game of Thrones.

Another Grrrr is the Star Wars universe that just got rebooted by the new movies.  It's like waking up from the Matrix and realizing the entire universe was a lie.  Ugh.

Edited November 28, 2017 by anatess2

[zil]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Wait, what???  I just got the first 3 Mistborn books for my 14 and 16 year olds!

@Carborendum, should I sequester the books?  My 16 year old has been reading the 1st one.  I'm fairly certain he's done with it and will be handing it to his younger brother soon...

Well, the rest of us don't know what it is JJ doesn't like.  At least one other member whose judgement I respect enjoys Sanderson.  So, frankly, unless it's the Stormlight stuff departing from previous works, I'm baffled.  Hopefully JJ will return to give us more info.  But I couldn't begin to guess whether any given book is appropriate for children - the thought never enters my mind.  Carb will be better for that since he has kids.

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You haven't read Drizzt?  Salvatore is still whipping out books out of that one.  I've read the first book that came out when I was still a whipper snapper of a teen-ager.

Isamov did me in with his unfinished series.  Grrr right there. 

Seems like George Martin is about to do the same with the Game of Thrones.

Another Grrrr is the Star Wars universe that just got rebooted by the new movies.  It's like waking up from the Matrix and realizing the entire universe was a lie.  Ugh.

No to Drizzt and Salvatore.

I wouldn't read any more George R. R. Martin for all the rice and tea in China.

The only SciFi stuff I read in by L. E. Modesitt, Jr. and that's just to tide me over until he puts out another fantasy novel (well, and to be amused by his futuristic version of the Church - it's always there in the background, and he doesn't like the Church, so there's always a slight negative spin).

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, zil said:

No to Drizzt and Salvatore.

The Legend of Drizzt Trilogy (first in the chronology but not first in publication date) can stand on its own I think.  Although Drizzt is just not quite full without the rest of his friends in the Icewind Dale Trilogy - which can probably also stand on its own, although there are tons of good books (and bad ones) later on in the series.  

But then I'm thinking hmmm... you  might think the evil underdark (which is the main point of the Drizzt back story) is "dirty".  You're not gonna get puppies and rainbows out of drows, ya know.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, zil said:

I'm as curious as @Carborendum as to what you find "dirty".  Or at least, are we talking about sex, violence, language, or....?  Your reference to romance novels makes me think sex, but I don't remember anything inappropriate in Mistborn (see next).

This is what we're talking about?  And was it Mistborn (I've read all of this, and will go back and read the first five chapters of the first book if it is this) or Stormlight (I've not read any) or both?

I've read Stormlight Archives.  Nothing sexual in the first couple chapters.  But it certainly was quite violent.  However, I didn't see that as more violent than, say, Marvel's Avengers.  The only thing in the whole of the first two books of any sexual nature was when one of the bad guys treated a prostitute unkindly and one of the good guys rescued her (and gentlemanly turned down an offer from her).  And there was one kissing scene later on.  Nothing more.

I have not read Mistborn.  But my wife is certainly more prudish than I am by leaps and bounds.  But she's never mentioned anything of that nature.

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

@Carborendum, should I sequester the books? 

I doubt it.  I'm just guessing that JJ has a "higher standard" of what is appropriate than most on this board.  If so, let him.  No harm in that.  I just disagree with where the bar should be set.  But I really am having a hard time imagining what he found inappropriate.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Guest

[JohnsonJones]

I think I am more "prudish" than many others.  Mistborn has some rather...I couldn't believe an LDS writer would write things like that.  He occasionally writes it to try to make the bad guys look evil, most likely, but it's past my taste.  It just goes into things that deal with some morality things in a violent manner, at first from the bad guys perspective, and then similar things casually discussed afterwards towards similar things occurring. 

From what I've heard about Game of Thrones (I've never watched it or read the books) that is definitely not a book series or TV series I would read or watch.  Mistborn is not  Game of Thrones bad (at least from what I've heard about that series), so if you are okay with Game of Thrones, I imagine you won't have a problem with Sanderson, at all.

His writing is worse than what I prefer though in regards to that type of stuff.  For me, yes, it's dirty.  For some who watch these types of things or read them regularly (think the smutty romance novels that some women read, even some that might not be that graphic but have references to immorality but not much else...I'd consider them pornographic at some points, dirty on others which are not graphic but talk slightly about immoral actions, but those who read them regularly probably don't bat an eyelash) they may not even notice it.  For me, though...not something I would probably choose to read.  It's dirtier than my normal choices.

I may not be as shocked as much if he wasn't a Mormon.  I think it's the Mormon thing that surprises me.

Mormon Writers that I do like, and can occasionally tackle hard subjects that center around morality, but do not do it in a manner I would consider dirty would be Gerald Lund (and I just found out he came out with a new really short book "Lieutenant Terry's Christmas Fudge" about a POW I believe, haven't read it yet) or the Yorgason Brothers. 

Edited November 29, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've read Stormlight Archives.  Nothing sexual in the first couple chapters.  But it certainly was quite violent.  However, I didn't see that as more violent than, say, Marvel's Avengers.  The only thing in the whole of the first two books of any sexual nature was when one of the bad guys treated a prostitute unkindly and one of the good guys rescued her (and gentlemanly turned down an offer from her).  And there was one kissing scene later on.  Nothing more.

I don't think people are that curious, but if they are, and are familiar with the Marvel Avengers, I think that could give them a good arena in regards to what I think does or does not cross the line.  I certainly know that there are many Mormons that would consider me a Prude.

I have a grandson who absolutely loves superheroes.  I can understand it a little, I have read a comic book or two in my life, especially when I was younger.  As such, he tries to take me to some Super Hero movies.

In that reference.  In regards to the comic books, those from the 40s are good, those from the 60s for the most part are good.  Those that I've seen on the stands over the past decade are pure smut in many instances.  I can't believe what they've become.  They used to be good, wholesome, action packed stuff for kids.  Now days I don't know if I'd even consider some of them appropriate for adults.

In Movies, I absolutely refuse to go to R-rated movies.  Every DC movie thus far has been inappropriate and dirty in that it either pushes immorality, is very dark and violent, or both.  I got up and walked out of Batman vs. Superman much to may grandson's chagrin and embarrassment.

The Ironman movies were much too dirty.  The rest of the Marvel Movies are rather violent as well, but some at least don't push terribly on the morality bounderies.  Ant-man was okay.  Some of Captain America and Thor, while violent, are okay.  I walked out of the Guardians of the Galaxy movies.  They were dirtier than I prefer.  The new Thor movie that he took me too, that was a weird one.  It is by far way to violent, but I actually really liked it.  I think it may be the music.  There is only one scene that I recall off the top of my head that is somewhat questionable in regards to it's presentation in moral character, which I may be embarrassed if my wife was watching...which is a good reason for me not to watch it again.

So, that hopefully explains my prudishness.  My grandson obviously doesn't seem to have a problem with these movies, even if I do.  He is coming by this weekend, I don't know if I want to go see a movie with him (he probably wants to take me to the Justice League Movie or something).

I do have a box of old comics (not so old, not as Old as I am, but 40-50 years old at this point) that he used to love to read as a kid, and probably got him started on his Comic book love.  They aren't worth anything these days (they were read over and over and over again by three 8-12 year old boys some years ago when I let them read them...I was supposed to be babysitting them at the time, and instead spoiled their youthful brains on comic books, Western movies (John Wayne to a large degree, though I also had some Roy rogers and Gene Autry), and candy.  Since then at least one of them feels that I still love Comic books and strives to take me out to the Movies when he gets the chance.

I don't so much like the movies to be honest, but I do like to spend the time bonding with various family members.  I told my wife the secret to me really liking one of them these days are those that actually take the time to come and visit with me and spend time with me.  I shouldn't have favorites, but it is hard to be completely even when some do what they can to spend time with me and build those family bonds and others don't.  I love them all the same, but some I really look forward to their visits, even if I don't like some of the things they enjoy anymore in my life.

So, yes, I think comparatively, even to many Mormons these days, I am considered a "prude."  These are movies I definitely would not let my kids have watched when they were young, and sometimes wonder what this grandkid is thinking in seeing some of them. Most of them are FAR too violent in my opinion and not very good for the spirit.  I know some of my kids probably resented that I was very careful in what I let them watch when they were younger and went berserk watching whatever stuff as adults and are far more lenient than I would be.  However, I still am very careful what I watch with the little children and normally have the approach that if it is inappropriate for a little child to watch, then it is inappropriate for me to watch.  Anything that surpasses what you would let a 3 year old watch (or read to them), is inappropriate (then, there some parents that probably let their little children watch all sorts of things I would be shocked at).

However, once they are over the age of 16, and definitely as adults, they can watch what they want, and though I may raise my eyebrows, they are adults and can make their own choices.  I go occasionally to movies with them and put up with a lot of what they want to watch (one of my kids thought that I would love the LotR movies, I did not.  Those WERE TOO violent, or at least the one I saw.  I saw Return of the King, which I thought was far more graphic and made to be a little more horrific than anything close to the book) most of the time without comment in the theater...but if it gets too bad I will walk out.

So yes, probably a "prude" as people put it.  Sister Jones is actually much more so than I am.  After the first few Marvel Movies, she refuses to even go see them with grandkids these days.

[Sunday21]

@JohnsonJones. Have you checked out Vidangel? There is also a similar Chrome service discussed on the Vidangel thread. 

[Guest]

@JohnsonJones,

First let me start off by saying that this is not an attack on you or your attitude here.  I just want a closer look at your ideas.  

The reason is that there is a family in my ward that everyone looks at as the "prudes" of the ward.  But the thing is that we all love them and would trust them with our lives.  We have a great deal of respect for them and think very highly of them.  I've heard many people say,"Well, the S. family didn't have a problem with it, so it should be fine." And our concerns cease.  So, if you're often in that category, you're probably held in high regard by many.

At the same time many have a hard time understanding where they're coming from sometimes.  So, I'm hoping that by asking a stranger on the internet about a similar position, I can come to understand this family better.  That is where I'm coming from.  This is no longer just about Sanderson.  It's about understanding you.

My first question/clarification:  You keep using the words "prude" and "dirty."  These words are most often used to describe subjects of a sexual nature.  You've even compared the texts to "smutty romance novels."  But then you keep going to violent scenes as your explanation.  If you are talking about something sexual, I've just asked my wife about Mistborn.  And she said that it was very dark (as post-apocalyptic stories tend to be) and very violent (mostly just the first book because it is describing how they got to the apocalypse).  But there was nothing sexual in that book at all.

So, are you actually talking about the dark and violent themes?  Or are you referring to something sexual?  If it's violence, I totally understand where you're coming from.  But the vocabulary you're using to describe what you object to is conjuring images of sexuality.  And apparently I'm not the only one who is confused by this.  No one can think of anything sexual at all (much less at an inappropriate level) in the chapters you would be reading.  This is what we're confused by.

Do you mean dark or violent?  Or do you mean sexual?

Edited November 29, 2017 by Guest

[zil]

29 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No one can think of anything sexual at all (much less at an inappropriate level) in the chapters you would be reading.  This is what we're confused by.

Exactly.  And is it so hard to say: "There was a scene wherein characters were [having sex / raping / getting raped / telling a crude joke] or some other more precise descriptor than "dirty"?

NOTE: Since Game of Thrones has been mentioned - there is no comparison.  The content of George R. R. Martin's series came straight out of the depths of hell and only gets more hellish the farther you read (I have never watched the show).  The first 100 pages are exceptional, then the descent begins and he doesn't stop (as far as I could tell, I threw the books into the trash can - and I never throw books into the trash).  (Yeah, I know there are people on these boards who think it's a great thing - I simply cannot comprehend how someone can include both that and the temple in the same existence.)

NOTE 2: I can only assume JJ has no clue what's actually in romance novels (which genre ranges from as tame as Little House on the Prairie to as filthy as I assume Fifty Shades of Gray (or is it Grey?) to be - I'm not even willing to go search for the correct title spelling).

Edited November 29, 2017 by zil

[anatess2]

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think I am more "prudish" than many others.  Mistborn has some rather...I couldn't believe an LDS writer would write things like that.  He occasionally writes it to try to make the bad guys look evil, most likely, but it's past my taste.  It just goes into things that deal with some morality things in a violent manner, at first from the bad guys perspective, and then similar things casually discussed afterwards towards similar things occurring. 

From what I've heard about Game of Thrones (I've never watched it or read the books) that is definitely not a book series or TV series I would read or watch.  Mistborn is not  Game of Thrones bad (at least from what I've heard about that series), so if you are okay with Game of Thrones, I imagine you won't have a problem with Sanderson, at all.

His writing is worse than what I prefer though in regards to that type of stuff.  For me, yes, it's dirty.  For some who watch these types of things or read them regularly (think the smutty romance novels that some women read, even some that might not be that graphic but have references to immorality but not much else...I'd consider them pornographic at some points, dirty on others which are not graphic but talk slightly about immoral actions, but those who read them regularly probably don't bat an eyelash) they may not even notice it.  For me, though...not something I would probably choose to read.  It's dirtier than my normal choices.

I may not be as shocked as much if he wasn't a Mormon.  I think it's the Mormon thing that surprises me.

Mormon Writers that I do like, and can occasionally tackle hard subjects that center around morality, but do not do it in a manner I would consider dirty would be Gerald Lund (and I just found out he came out with a new really short book "Lieutenant Terry's Christmas Fudge" about a POW I believe, haven't read it yet) or the Yorgason Brothers. 

Okay.  I'm trying to understand where you are on standards compared to mine.

Game of Thrones the books is VASTLY different from Game of Thrones the HBO show.  The latter is smut.  The former is your regular fantasy story which, I would say, is less "dirty" than the Once and Future King.

So, let me understand what you're saying.  How does Mistborn compare to the war chapters of Alma or the OT?  Because, it's not that they don't talk about immorality in the Book of Mormon or the Bible, they just write it in scriptural language skimming over details.

What's your opinion on the Ender's Game series (also written by a Mormon)?

What's your opinion on the Avengers movie (Marvel)?

Edited November 29, 2017 by anatess2

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

@JohnsonJones,

First let me start off by saying that this is not an attack on you or your attitude here.  I just want a closer look at your ideas.  

The reason is that there is a family in my ward that everyone looks at as the "prudes" of the ward.  But the thing is that we all love them and would trust them with our lives.  We have a great deal of respect for them and think very highly of them.  I've heard many people say,"Well, the S. family didn't have a problem with it, so it should be fine." And our concerns cease.  So, if you're often in that category, you're probably held in high regard by many.

At the same time many have a hard time understanding where they're coming from sometimes.  So, I'm hoping that by asking a stranger on the internet about a similar position, I can come to understand this family better.  That is where I'm coming from.  This is no longer just about Sanderson.  It's about understanding you.

My first question/clarification:  You keep using the words "prude" and "dirty."  These words are most often used to describe subjects of a sexual nature.  You've even compared the texts to "smutty romance novels."  But then you keep going to violent scenes as your explanation.  If you are talking about something sexual, I've just asked my wife about Mistborn.  And she said that it was very dark (as post-apocalyptic stories tend to be) and very violent (mostly just the first book because it is describing how they got to the apocalypse).  But there was nothing sexual in that book at all.

So, are you actually talking about the dark and violent themes?  Or are you referring to something sexual?  If it's violence, I totally understand where you're coming from.  But the vocabulary you're using to describe what you object to is conjuring images of sexuality.  And apparently I'm not the only one who is confused by this.  No one can think of anything sexual at all (much less at an inappropriate level) in the chapters you would be reading.  This is what we're confused by.

Do you mean dark or violent?  Or do you mean sexual?

 

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Okay.  I'm trying to understand where you are on standards compared to mine.

Game of Thrones the books is VASTLY different from Game of Thrones the HBO show.  The latter is smut.  The former is your regular fantasy story which, I would say, is less "dirty" than the Once and Future King.

So, let me understand what you're saying.  How does Mistborn compare to the war chapters of Alma or the OT?  Because, it's not that they don't talk about immorality in the Book of Mormon or the Bible, they just write it in scriptural language skimming over details.

What's your opinion on the Ender's Game series (also written by a Mormon)?

What's your opinion on the Avengers movie (Marvel)?

Mistborn has both, violence and moral issues.  I think you recognized the problems with his other series in the first arena, but Mistborn also has some rather serious stuff.  I would not compare it to Alma, but to Moroni Chapter 9, but instead of directly going into how horrible this stuff is, they first tell about this idea happening from the POV of one of the individuals who wish to do these things in the Prelude, and then in reference to what could happen to one of the main characters.  It's a pretty horrific thing and the book almost casually refers to it.  In that arena, I consider it very dirty, but not necessarily smut, if that makes sense.  It's similar to some romance books that may not go into graphic detail of immorality, but mention it casually or as something the main characters participate in and glorify it to a degree. 

It also goes into graphic detail about things of a rather twisted manner in regards to abuses people do to their bodies to cast magical power and other assorted things. 

I understand that this may be how Sanderson tries to make sure you know who the Bad guys are in his novels, but there are better ways to write it down than that I think, or to address it in ways that are not so overbearing on that type of subject.

I've never read Game of Thrones nor watched the TV series.   I have heard about it from others, and as such, have avoided the TV series.  I would have thought that the book series was also somewhat like the TV series, but I normally do not read Science Fiction and Fantasy so have never actually been tempted to read it myself to be quite honest.

I'd have to get back with you on the Ender's Game series, but I've not read it.  My wife read it when one of our kids was wanting to and warned me that it had a disturbing amount of language which was inappropriate for a young teenager at that time.

The Avengers Movie was VERY violent.  If you look at it that the good guys win, I suppose that could be considered somewhat morally uplifting, but otherwise I find it hard to find something uplifting about it.  I have a grandson who absolutely loves it though.

The way I go about books and movies is like this.  Many years ago we needed to keep an eye on what we watched and read as there were not so many ratings around.  Later, after they came up with this new rating system, we were advised not to watch R-rated movies, which we kept.  Even prior to that my wife and I tried to not let our children (at the time, it was more of just the older two at the time and they were quite young) watch anything that was overly violent, morally questionable, or had language.  However, as time passed it became harder as sometimes movies came out that had questionable material regardless or rating.

A conference talk came that had a remarkable impact on what I normally tried to adhere to (but I have not been perfect, as I have seen some movies obviously which are not really appropriate as per the standards as I mentioned above).  In this talk they basically referred that one doesn't have to merely go by ratings.  What we should rely on in regards to our media is to consider whether it would be appropriate for our little children to watch or not.  If it is inappropriate for our little children to watch, why does it suddenly become appropriate for us to watch?  The standard then is if it is inappropriate for our little children to watch, it is inappropriate for us to watch.

I liked the advice and took it to the entertainment that I watch.  Of course, at times, my wife thought some of the westerns that I would let the children watch was too violent for them (True Grit, or the Shootist for example), so different standards obviously are out there.

The other thing I think to ask is...how is this movie getting me closer to our Lord?  Is it uplifting, does it bring the spirit and espouse the spirit?

Things like that.  My wife is far more perfect in this regard than I am (as I said, I still read westerns and other such things that are probably not as uplifting as they should be for my own entertainment).

I know, weird for a historian who researches all sorts of violent things in history and throughout, but that's normally what I try to stick with.  There are many things that others may not even notice in their media that make me feel distinctly uncomfortable on uneasy about watching or reading.

On the bright side I had a nephew return from a mission recently who felt right at home with my style of stuff (and was similarly uncomfortable when his parents took him to Guardians of the Galaxy 2 as his first movie back), so there is occasionally those that are somewhat close to my thoughts I think, or hope at least.

However, you are all adults and what I have as my standards are not what you need to have or should have.  My thoughts on Brian Sanderson are more in regards to how I feel about it after reading through the book.  AS far as I know the LDS church has nothing in it's temple questions or anything else that centers around this type of stuff unless it is graphic (as in, pornographic) in it's detail.  I think (or at least hope) you know the difference between what I avoid just because of my personal take, and what is actually not allowed by the church.  I'm not addressing that here, as we are just discussing personal tastes and how we do things.  Sanderson is still legal to read as probably George R.R. Martin is as well. 

PS:  I do wonder sometimes, why we don't say something about the more graphic romance novels like harlequins that would seem to me to be pornographic in writing from what I've heard others talk about, but the church has no real condemnation on those either and thus it is perfectly legit for Mormons to read things like that even).  I understand there are different levels of Romance novels...1. those that are basically pornographic (or what I'd consider such) in nature, 2. those that are basically smut, 3. those that may not really discuss things (like the fade out scenes of a movie) but take immorality as acceptable and may even promote it, and 4. those that are clean romance stories...somewhat like the Anne of Green Gables series later on or other books that are more defined as romance stories.  However, as far as I know, the LDS church does not have a question on any of those and someone who reads those books are just as good in their standing in the church as I would be, perhaps in some cases in even better standing.

[Guest]

Well, I tried.  But apparently he just doesn't want to explain himself and simply remain a mystery.

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Well, I tried.  But apparently he just doesn't want to explain himself and simply remain a mystery.

I think I explained it above.  It has some very immoral acts discussed in the book, as well as excessive in violence.  I'm not going to get into the details if that is what you are wanting, I'm not Brandon Sanderson in my eagerness to delve into that type of stuff, if that is what you are asking.  I find the stuff distasteful, so, going into detail about it, is not something I'm going to do.

I tried the author out, but I found that the author was NOT my type of author.  I'm not really a fantasy type reader, but if I were, it's just a little too dirty for my taste.  It may seem normal to those who read this type of stuff all the time, maybe even clean if they read worse, but for me, it's far dirtier than what I am used to or what I prefer reading.  I was surprised a Mormon would write things like that.  I did give him a fair try though.  I'm not sure what more you would want me to do.

Not all of us share the same tastes or interests.

Edited November 30, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think I explained it above.  It has some very immoral acts discussed in the book, as well as excessive in violence.  I'm not going to get into the details if that is what you are wanting, I'm not Brandon Sanderson in my eagerness to delve into that type of stuff, if that is what you are asking.  I find the stuff distasteful, so, going into detail about it, is not something I'm going to do.

I tried the author out, but I found that the author was NOT my type of author.  I'm not really a fantasy type reader, but if I were, it's just a little too dirty for my taste.  It may seem normal to those who read this type of stuff all the time, maybe even clean if they read worse, but for me, it's far dirtier than what I am used to or what I prefer reading.  I was surprised a Mormon would write things like that.  I did give him a fair try though.  I'm not sure what more you would want me to do.

Not all of us share the same tastes or interests.

I told you this was no longer about Sanderson.  I was curious about what you were thinking.  And you simply didn't want to open up.  That's fine.  No one is going to force you to.  But you can't claim to have explained yourself when all you did was repeat your very general and generic terms which continue to be vague.

There's going into details...  And there's going into details. 

You said "immoral stuff".  Then I look things up (or in my case ask my wife).  I find nothing, so I ask for something more specific and you say "immoral stuff" again.  You realize that repeating the same words doesn't make it more clear the second time, right?  I'm asking for something like "the scene where Character A was doing X and then treated Character B badly when they were at location C." That would be sufficient.  But simply leaving it at the generic "immoral stuff" simply makes some people believe you may simply be seeing things that aren't really there.

Whatever, I said I tried.  I'll leave this.  It is clear you simply want to make a statement and then drop it.  Not really the thing to do in a forum where we, you know, actually discuss things...

[zil]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Well, I tried.  But apparently he just doesn't want to explain himself and simply remain a mystery.

OK, all I have time for tonight is the first POV (Lord Tresting) in the prologue.  Assumed issues:

Quote

"When I first inherited this land from my father, I had a few runaways--but I executed their families.  The rest quickly lost heart."

"Rumors say that you like to dally with your skaa women." (then later, in reference to this) "I have been satisfied regarding your actions with the skaa women.  What I've seen and heard here indicate that you always clean up your messes."

I'll have to celebrate tonight, he thought.  There was that young girl in the fourteenth hovel that he'd been watching for some time...

(if above's a problem, don't read or watch news about politicians)

Then, mention of beating workers (basically slaves, by the sound of it) for no good reason.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, zil said:

OK, all I have time for tonight is the first POV (Lord Tresting) in the prologue.  Assumed issues:

(if above's a problem, don't read or watch news about politicians)

Then, mention of beating workers (basically slaves, by the sound of it) for no good reason.

Oh! Heavens!  How scandalous!  I'm surprised you posted such filth on Mormonhub.  I think we may have to report you to the moderators.

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Oh! Heavens!  How scandalous!  I'm surprised you posted such filth on Mormonhub.  I think we may have to report you to the moderators.

Please don't report me, I'll be good, really I will.

Or not.  In all seriousness, I only re-read a couple of pages, so maybe there's something worse.  Since JJ won't be any more specific, we can only guess.  If I can, I'll continue through the first 5 chapters to see what I find.  (IMO, so far what I've found is no worse than I could find in scripture, though recorded for a different purpose, of course.)

[Midwest LDS]

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I was surprised a Mormon would write things like that

 

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm not Brandon Sanderson in my eagerness to delve into that type of stuff

You see @JohnsonJones this is the problem. It's not that you don't like Sanderson or even that you find his writing distatesful. That's fine and I would never mock you for that, we all have our personal preferences and he just isn't your cup of cocoa. The problem is when you use descriptors like those qouted above to explain why you don't like him. Now you've gone from explaining why you don't like him, to calling him and every Mormon who does evil. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but that's how it comes across. I happen to know his Father in law well, he was my bishop in college, and he had nothing but nice things to say about the man and how he treats his daughter and grandkids so implying that he is some kind of lust crazed goon is bothersome to me. In addition, it always annoys me when someone takes their own personal view and implies that only the hellbound would disagree. I remember ordering a Coke at dinner with my in-laws once. My wife's nephew asked what a Coke was, and my mother in law described it like I was drinking beer. Now I actually love her, she's a good woman as I'm in no doubt you are a good man, but that really bothered me. You shouldn't assume that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of something is evil. I think that's what's sticking with me, rather than that you don't like Sanserson's writing.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Midwest LDS

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Midwest LDS said:

You see @JohnsonJones this is the problem. It's not that you don't like Sanderson or even that you find his writing distatesful. That's fine and I would never mock you for that, we all have our personal preferences and he just isn't your cup of cocoa. The problem is when you use descriptors like those qouted above to explain why you don't like him. Now you've gone from explaining why you don't like him, to calling him and every Mormon who does evil. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but that's how it comes across. I happen to know his Father in law well, he was my bishop in college, and he had nothing but nice things to say about the man and how he treats his daughter and grandkids so implying that he is some kind of lust crazed goon is bothersome to me. In addition, it always annoys me when someone takes their own personal view and implies that only the hellbound would disagree. I remember ordering a Coke at dinner with my in-laws once. My wife's nephew asked what a Coke was, and my mother in law described it like I was drinking beer. Now I actually love her, she's a good woman as I'm in no doubt you are a good man, but that really bothered me. You shouldn't assume that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of something is evil. I think that's what's sticking into some of us, rather than that you don't like Sanserson's writing.

To be honest, I wasn't insulted by JJ's words.  I just found it frustrating that, even after explaining my motives for better understanding, he refused to really explain anything, yet he claimed he did.

[Midwest LDS]

@Carborendum Understood, I should have clarified that was more of a personal pet peeve.

[JohnsonJones]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You said "immoral stuff".  Then I look things up (or in my case ask my wife).  I find nothing, so I ask for something more specific and you say "immoral stuff" again.  You realize that repeating the same words doesn't make it more clear the second time, right?  I'm asking for something like "the scene where Character A was doing X and then treated Character B badly when they were at location C." That would be sufficient.  But simply leaving it at the generic "immoral stuff" simply makes some people believe you may simply be seeing things that aren't really there.

Whatever, I said I tried.  I'll leave this.  It is clear you simply want to make a statement and then drop it.  Not really the thing to do in a forum where we, you know, actually discuss things...

The immoral stuff is pretty obvious in the book.  You may be so involved and used to reading stuff like that, but to those who do NOT read that type of stuff, it is actually pretty disgusting.  Just like I wouldn't go into detail describing something more explicit, like a pornographic book, I'm not about to go into detail about dirty things inside these books.  If I found it disgusting to read, I'm not about to stoop to that level in describing it here!

It has some really disgustingly dirty and horrendous stuff in this book.  I've been pretty respectful overall about it prior to this.  Trying to mock someone's morals because you don't want to see your favorite author criticized is something I think is not going to help matters.  You suggested the book, you did NOT say anything about how dirty it was, and I went into it without expecting anything.  If there are those out there that are like me, and do NOT want to read about such things in our entertainment medium, than they will find themselves just as disgusted as I was. 

I went into as much detail as I would, and I am not going to be goaded into discussing it in detail like some pornographic rag would.  Zil touched upon some of it, but excluded the more gory details it goes into (and it gets into far more detail than what she covered in her phrases).  Just because you gloss over some immoral references and actions does NOT mean that it is acceptable.

Trying to convince someone to lower their morals, or goad them into talking about immoral things is NOT something I am going to do.

You suggested a book.  I decided to try it out on your suggestions and others here.  I found things that were reprehensible to me in my selections of reading and tried to explain as  politely as possible that I really did not like this type of stuff in my literature that I read for entertainment, I was saddened to see a Mormon Author treat such subjects so frivously and even write about such things, and I basically found it disgusting.

At the time, I was just commenting on the author, but I will say this since I've been criticized about my morals and morality here directly.  I have said this to others in my life, and unfortunately though not surprised, saddened that I may have to say this here.  I am a MORMON.  I know other Mormons may not hold the same standards as I do, but that does NOT change that MY standards in regards to what I try to read and watch are something I aspire to.  I try NOT to read or watch certain things, and I am not going to lower them simply because people are mocking my standards.  I would appreciate if you would respect that I have standards that I have and not try to use peer pressure or other such things to try to convince me to lower them. 

thank you.

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

 

You see @JohnsonJones this is the problem. It's not that you don't like Sanderson or even that you find his writing distatesful. That's fine and I would never mock you for that, we all have our personal preferences and he just isn't your cup of cocoa. The problem is when you use descriptors like those qouted above to explain why you don't like him. Now you've gone from explaining why you don't like him, to calling him and every Mormon who does evil. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but that's how it comes across. I happen to know his Father in law well, he was my bishop in college, and he had nothing but nice things to say about the man and how he treats his daughter and grandkids so implying that he is some kind of lust crazed goon is bothersome to me. In addition, it always annoys me when someone takes their own personal view and implies that only the hellbound would disagree. I remember ordering a Coke at dinner with my in-laws once. My wife's nephew asked what a Coke was, and my mother in law described it like I was drinking beer. Now I actually love her, she's a good woman as I'm in no doubt you are a good man, but that really bothered me. You shouldn't assume that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of something is evil. I think that's what's sticking with me, rather than that you don't like Sanserson's writing.

I know personally, being a Bishop does NOT make one righteous, or even one of the righteous.  That's a standard some Mormons try to use, but it's not really any real standard in regards to how righteous or unrighteous one is.  It's a church calling, just like any other church calling and one is just as likely to receive salvation as a home teacher or any other calling as one is if they are a Bishop. 

Upon saying this though, I did not say Sanderson was hellbound, but that I WAS surprised a Mormon would write such things as he did.  I find it sad that some Mormons resort to such things.  I suppose if one wants to appeal to the world, that is what one does these days, but there's a difference between what appeals to the world and what appeals to the Lord.

I've been clear that I'm not condemning you or others who read it, but for me personally, it is NOT something I want to read.  It's below the standards that I normally select for entertainment value in what I choose to read on my personal time. 

What I find surprising is how many are willing to gloss over this stuff and/or make excuses for it in what should be an entertainment item.  It's a fantasy, not some essay on today's problem and how to solve them, not some historical book, or anything else.  It's written for entertainment, and as such, to me, is not something I would choose to read. 

I used my grandson's example above to show various things.  In relation to what you said, I don't condemn my grandkid, and I made it explicitly clear that it's not against any church regulation to read these things (did anyone even READ my long post above, this was explained in detail but it seems no one actually read or understood it?).

However, it IS against my own personal standards.  What I DO find shocking in this thread is that people have been so accustomed to reading this stuff they don't even recognize it or why it may be offensive to those who do NOT choose to read this type of stuff or find it in their entertainment mediums on a regular basis.  That doesn't make you a bad person if you read It, but trying to gloss over that there are things that may be offensive to others that may not read that type of material or hide it and say it does not exist...I don't understand this type of mindset.  You can admit it's in there, but that it does not bother you for various reasons, even if it may bother those with more delicate sensibilities to those matters.

What he writes is unacceptable in regards to what I normally choose to read.  I gave it a fair chance though, and I did not comment until after I read the items I brought so to give those who spoke favorably about it a fair chance.  To be honest, I probably should have put it down after the first few pages when it first started talking about things that...frankly, were not things I enjoyed reading about.  Bad Guys or not, there are ways to convey that someone is evil without touching upon things that frankly, are offensive in it's manner to those who do not read those types of things in their literature. 

As I said above, once again, there's nothing in the church regulations that are against you reading this type of stuff.  However, I am shocked when Mormon authors who write such things may be held up in such high regard as per things of the world, when I would have hoped they would know better.  Yes, I do hold Mormons to a higher standard than I do others, because as I implied, if he were NOT Mormon, I would not have been shocked in the least.

I still would prefer not to read the books he writes, but I wouldn't have been as shocked as I was in regards to the material which he wrote about.

[Midwest LDS]

See now I can understand where you are coming from somewhat @JohnsonJones and it may be that some of the miscommunication that can occur between us just comes from online discussions. I still prefer face to face discussion personally, even though I do enjoy this site. I actually agreed with you as far as your statements on modern comic books (a lot of them have pictures that are essentially pornographic and it's difficult to find any that can be clean enough for anyone let alone kids). I'm perfectly ok with you, as I stated above, not liking him for your personal reasons. It's fantasy and irrelevant to our salvation. I don't agree with you that it's innapropriate and I'm not trying to hide from it in my view, and I think those who reccomended him to you agree with that sentiment or they wouldn't have reccomended it, but you do and that's fine. I actually feel like I understand your position better and while I find nothing innapropriate in his writing, I'll make sure to consider your point of view in the future before I suggest something. I do think that Brandon Sanderson is a really good guy though, and his Father in Law made a huge impact on my spiritual life so I'm not saying he is a good guy just because he is a bishop. Just be careful when you make sweeping generalizations about others righteousness as it comes off as self righteous and I don't think you are trying to come off as that.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Midwest LDS

[Guest MormonGator]

It's really cool that you met a relative of his, @Midwest LDS!