Brandon Sanderson Hate Him or Read Him

[Midwest LDS]

Yeah I thought so too @MormonGator. His Father in Law is a really neat guy and was a great bishop.

[anatess2]

13 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.

I read it.  Salvatore is more "dirty" than Mistborn (at least the underdark books).  And my sons have read all of the Drizzt Salvatore books so I'm not sequestering Mistborn.  I'm not really sucked into Mistborn like I've been with other series but I like Sanderson.  I'm gonna finish that series one of these days (looking like it will take me years with how my life has been lately).  I just wanted to heed @JohnsonJones warning and read the book for myself to make sure it's ok for my kids.

I think I have an idea now what JJ's standards are... or rather, what JJ's standards aren't.

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Yeah I thought so too @MormonGator. His Father in Law is a really neat guy and was a great bishop.

I got you beat. The most famous person I ever met was a dude in the mall who looked like the lead singer of Judas Priest. Take THAT. 

(Yes, I'm not sure why Rob Halford was a small mall in NH, but anyway.) 

[Midwest LDS]

Sigh I bow down to your obvious celebrity spotting superiority @MormonGator?

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Midwest LDS said:

Sigh I bow down to your obvious celebrity spotting superiority @MormonGator?

It's okay. We can't all have my good luck, social graces and charming personality. 

[Midwest LDS]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's okay. We can't all have my good luck, social graces and charming personality. 

Tragically a cross many of us must bear.

[zil]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I read it.  Salvatore is more "dirty" than Mistborn (at least the underdark books).  And my sons have read all of the Drizzt Salvatore books so I'm not sequestering Mistborn.  I'm not really sucked into Mistborn like I've been with other series but I like Sanderson.  I'm gonna finish that series one of these days (looking like it will take me years with how my life has been lately).  I just wanted to heed @JohnsonJones warning and read the book for myself to make sure it's ok for my kids.

I think I have an idea now what JJ's standards are... or rather, what JJ's standards aren't.

On 11/28/2017 at 7:50 AM, anatess2 said:

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

On 11/29/2017 at 8:23 AM, anatess2 said:

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.

If you think George R. R. Martin is acceptable reading, then nothing I've ever read is going to bother you.  Nothing in any Sanderson book I ever read could come close to as bad as Martin's stuff.

[anatess2]

22 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

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. 

There's really nothing called "legal" in Church council other than scriptures and church magazines/manuals and other things of "good report" (spiritually uplifting).  Everything else - even Grimm's Fairy Tales that have morals to the story - are not really written for "spiritual upliftment" so the spiritual value of such stuff is left up to the members to govern themselves on.

I think I understand now where you are on the standards line.  I'm very far from you.  I grew up watching Shaolin Temple - bloody, gory, very violent.  Yet my parents are so prudish that they don't even call it Chicken Breast, they call it Chicken Chest.  So, you can rip a person's intestines out his stomach as long as you don't french kiss him first.  Hah hah.  But then I was a voracious reader and my parents couldn't keep up with what I was reading.  I read Bourne Identity when I was only 11 - it has a rape scene.  Damien Omen about the same time - about demonic possession.

Anyway, I've mellowed out now that I'm older but I still watch some r-Rated movies like The Accountant (I love this movie even though I don't like Ben Afleck) and American Sniper.  My kids saw both movies (they're 14 and 16).  But yeah, I advice them against reading Damien Omen.  My kids don't watch TV - too boring for them.  They're not into the shows their peers watch.  They're more into youtube videos like Demolition Ranch and VSauce.  And they're both voracious readers too.  Most of the stuff in their library I've read.  There's a Patterson Series about teen-agers with super powers that I haven't read.  I don't like Patterson much.

 

22 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

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.

As far as the Romance genre, most publishers have specific lines so you'll know what kind of book you're getting into.  For example, in the Harlequinn offerings, there's Harlequinn Heartwarming line which is your "traditional values" kind of stories - inspirational dramas with no skin, no gore, etc.  This would be equivalent to Casablanca in movies.  Then there's Harlequinn Dare line which is porn.

Now, the Church doesn't tell you, "You can read Harlequinn Heartwarming but not Harlequinn Dare" in the same manner that the Church doesn't tell you, "You can watch Two Weeks Notice but not Fifty Shades of Grey".  Nor does the Church tell you, "If it's in the Public Library, you can read it" in the same manner that the Church has moved away from using the MPAA rating system in its counsels.  But all of the Church teachings - especially the For the Strength of Youth - teach and instill the standards that are of Christ.  It is up to each individual to govern themselves accordingly.

And just like there are those members who are fine with cooking with white wine while others won't even add vanilla to their cake, everybody has their own way of following counsels.  The vanilla-avoiding members can't believe "those Mormons who cook with wine!" too.  No big deal.

Edited November 30, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

39 minutes ago, zil said:

If you think George R. R. Martin is acceptable reading, then nothing I've ever read is going to bother you.  Nothing in any Sanderson book I ever read could come close to as bad as Martin's stuff.

There's what I read and then there's what my kids read...  I was worried about what I just gave my kids.  But yes, from the first book, it's right there with what my kids are reading.

Oh, and yeah, I don't have the "if I can read it, my kids should be able to read it too" rule that @JohnsonJones has.  There are lots of things I read that I advice my kids not to read.  Same difference as I don't let my kids drive/date/ride-roller-coasters until I know they're ready for it.  Make sense?

Edited November 30, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

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.

I need to make two points here:

1) I NEVER MOCKED YOUR MORALS.  On the contrary, I thought I gave you quite a compliment about it.  The thing is -- and this is the HONEST TRUTH -- I'd LOVE to be someone like you.  I wish I had the level of sensitivity to things that I really should have.  But I've been spoiled and numbed by living in this world.  So, in order to get where you are, I need to understand you.  But even when I asked (I thought, very politely) you refused to educate me on where you're coming from. 

Knowing that is my motive, can you understand why I was getting frustrated with your lack of communication.  I was mocking the fact that you refused to communicate on an open forum that you voluntarily chose to participate in.  If you want to keep things to yourself, then keep things to yourself.

2) This has NOTHING to do with Sanderson.  You didn't like his work. Fine.  Throw it in the trash.  I don't care.  I'm still frustrated at your lack of communication.

I'm just trying to understand what is is you're talking about.  And you continue to do two things that are causing frustration: 1) State a very general criticism (valid or not, I know not) and 2) Never give any specifics that may guide anyone who doesn't understand, to know what is is you're referring to.

I'd ask you to consider two questions.

1) Do you wish to communicate or not?
2) If you wish to communicate, how well do you think you're doing?  If not, why are you still posting? The primary purpose of writing anything is to eventually communicate a concept.  I'm not getting a lot of that from you.

Quote

EXAMPLE:

Critic: The government sucks.  We must change the system now!

Student:  Really?  I didn't know it was all that bad.  What's bad about it?

Critic:  Pshaw!!  Are you kidding.  Everything.  It's just horrendous.

Student: Horrendous, how?

Critic:  Well, just look at it.  It's just a mess.

Student: I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about.  Can you give me an example?

Critic: There's so much, I just don't know where to begin.

Student: Well, just think of one example off the top of your head and explain what is bad about it.

Critic: Are you kidding.  I just don't even want to think about it anymore.

General criticisms are not enough for communication.  You don't have to go into graphic details.  But if you just give one or two examples of some action or words spoken.  Not enough to be graphic, but enough for us to know which pages to look for in the book, so we can look at it more critically and see where you're coming from.  As of now, I have no idea where you're coming from.

Quote

EXAMPLE:

Critic: Well, just look at what has happened to religious freedom.

Student: Like what?  I'm still going to church and am able to practice my religion.

Critic: Yes, you may. But we have multiple instances of people of faith being discrimminated against in the law, courts, and in government.  The news is full of such things.  Just do a search for "Religious Freedom" in the US and you'll find a bunch of sites talking about the details.

Would you leave someone in the mud if by some simple explanations you could guide them out?  That's all I'm asking you to do.  And all you're telling me is that you won't touch mud.  I don't think you need to touch mud to tell me how to get out of it.  But you'd rather criticize someone who is honestly trying to understand and learn instead of improving your own communication.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

35 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'd LOVE to be someone like you.  I wish I had the level of sensitivity to things that I really should have. 

For me, I don't think I'd want to be this.  This is something my husband and I have talked about at length before we had kids.  You can shield your kids from seeing and hearing anything contrary to the gospel from your house.  The problem with that is, when they leave your house, they're going to walk into these things.  For example, a lot of people don't send their kids to public school because of the bad influence there.  That's commendable.  My husband and I deal with it differently - we teach our kids to trust their parents and our teachings so when they see (or even taught) the stuff contrary to these teachings by their teachers/other students in school they'll know those are the things we were telling them to avoid and would react to them as such.

So basically, we are fine with them seeing the badness of the bad guys in Marvel movies because they know those things are bad.  It's difficult to illustrate the fight between good and evil if we can't show the evil.  But yes, different kids (even adults) have different level of tolerances before it starts to negatively affect their spirits.  Like, is it necessary to show naked Jews in Shindler's List to illustrate the badness of the Nazis?  I believe it was necessary.  But then, I'm not as sensitive to nakedness as other people having grown up in the Philippines where a lot of naked poor people can be seen just a few miles away from the house.  A lot of kids - especially the ones gifted by God with a lot of empathy - can't handle the Shark eating Nemo's Mom, or the miscarriage in Up.  These kids won't be able to handle Marvel movies either.

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The problem with that is, when they leave your house, they're going to walk into these things. 

This is nothing more than the old argument "What are you going to do when your kids grow up and see how things are in the REAL world?"

Answer: I HOPE THEY ARE SHOCKED!!!

See, I really meant it when I said I could be like JJ.  I really meant it when I said I've been spoiled by this world.  I wish I hadn't been.  But I have.  I want to give my children the best opportunity I can so that they will not be spoiled by this world.

When I see the hurdles I had to go through vs. the hurdles my wife has had to go through, I'd rather have had hers than mine. (there's some fudge in that statement.  But you know what I mean.)

Edited November 30, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

Just now, Carborendum said:

This is nothing more than the old argument "What are you going to do when your kids grow up and see how things are in the REAL world?"

Answer: I HOPE THEY ARE SHOCKED!!!

Of course.  What I'm getting at... kids can get so sheltered that when they go on a Mission or go to College and see how the real world operates outside of the parental cocoon, they're not just shocked, they end up not being able to handle it and have to go back home to safety.  And on the flip side, there are also those that go all the way the opposite of how they were raised in rebellion/resentment of their "seclusion".  Anyway, my husband and I decided we're going to do it the way we're currently doing it.

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

See, I really meant it when I said I could be like JJ.  I really meant it when I said I've been spoiled by this world.  I wish I hadn't been.  But I have.  I want to give my children the best opportunity I can so that they will not be spoiled by this world.

When I see the hurdles I had to go through vs. the hurdles my wife has had to go through, I'd rather have had hers than mine. (there's some fudge in that statement.  But you know what I mean.)

I  know what you mean.  My husband was raised very differently than I was.  But I wouldn't trade my hurdles for my husband's hurdles nor would he exchange his for mine (he believes like you do, I had it easy he says) simply because it is what made us who we are today and I really like what my husband has become and he says the same thing about me.  So there's that.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Of course.  What I'm getting at... kids can get so sheltered that when they go on a Mission or go to College and see how the real world operates outside of the parental cocoon, they're not just shocked, they end up not being able to handle it and have to go back home to safety.  And on the flip side, there are also those that go all the way the opposite of how they were raised in rebellion/resentment of their "seclusion".  Anyway, my husband and I decided we're going to do it the way we're currently doing it.

1) I wholly got what you were saying.  I completely understood it.  You didn't need to expound.
2) I completely respect your right to raise your family as you see fit just as I hope you would respect my right to raise mine the way I see fit.

But your post basically criticized my choice in how I raise my kids.  So, I gave a counter argument.  But given the response above, I don't think you really understood my point.  So, I'll elaborate.

A) There is NO SILVER BULLET.  I've said that multiple times on this forum.  I'll say it again.  Any choice you make is going to have both good and bad consequences.  We all weigh them and make judgments about what is a better path.  No path will be free of negative consequences.  But it may still be the best path for that person for that season for that circumstance.
B) I've seen how my wife handles things from 'the real world'.  She was raised in a very sheltered life.  And I've seen how I'm handling things.  Given both of our trials, I'll say in some ways I don't know if I could handle the things that she has to deal with.  But at the same time, I'd prefer them because it would mean that I wouldn't have the demons I've been forced to live with all my life.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

1) I wholly got what you were saying.  I completely understood it.  You didn't need to expound.
2) I completely respect your right to raise your family as you see fit just as I hope you would respect my right to raise mine the way I see fit.

But your post basically criticized my choice in how I raise my kids.  So, I gave a counter argument.  But given the response above, I don't think you really understood my point.  So, I'll elaborate.

A) There is NO SILVER BULLET.  I've said that multiple times on this forum.  I'll say it again.  Any choice you make is going to have both good and bad consequences.  We all weigh them and make judgments about what is a better path.  No path will be free of negative consequences.  But it may still be the best path for that person for that season for that circumstance.
B) I've seen how my wife handles things from 'the real world'.  She was raised in a very sheltered life.  And I've seen how I'm handling things.  Given both of our trials, I'll say in some ways I don't know if I could handle the things that she has to deal with.  But at the same time, I'd prefer them because it would mean that I wouldn't have the demons I've been forced to live with all my life.

No, I didn't criticize how anybody raised their kids.  I thought I was very clear that I was simply pointing out the differences in the way people approach life especially with the differences in personalities and experiences of parents as well as children.  I even made sure that I point out that the other method is commendable.  I simply explained our rationale for why we chose the method we chose.

Edited November 30, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

Just now, anatess2 said:

No, I didn't criticize how anybody raised their kids.  I thought I was very clear that I was simply pointing out the differences in the way people approach life especially with the differences in personalities and experiences of parents as well as children.  I simply explained our rationale for why we chose the method we chose.

Ok. Fair enough.  It may not have been a criticism.  But it was a critique in that you pointed out a weakness (or a negative consequence) of my choice.  As such, I gave a counter point to that observation.

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Ok. Fair enough.  It may not have been a criticism.  But it was a critique in that you pointed out a weakness (or a negative consequence) of my choice.  As such, I gave a counter point to that observation.

Yes.  I gave critique to explain why we chose our method and why I wouldn't want to be like JJ.  That doesn't imply I think JJ method's are deplorable or some such.

One thing I'm really big on is - freedom for parents to raise kids how they want to raise them.  I am completely against government (and that extends to busy bodies) telling parents how to raise their kids.  That, of course, doesn't include teaching parents on Christian living and suggestions on how to improve this-and-that and the like.  Know what I mean?  Social media parenting groups are TERRIBLE with this.  What?  You give your kids microwave dinner?  You are such a horrible parent!  Yeah yeah.

Edited November 30, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

Another surreal thread.

Is this a mormonhub thing or an internet thing?

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Another surreal thread.

Is this a mormonhub thing or an internet thing?

It's a @Carborendum thing. 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, anatess2 said:

It's a @Carborendum thing. 

 

That guy! So unreasonable and such off-the-wall, strange beyond-the-mark views.

[anatess2]

53 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That guy! So unreasonable and such off-the-wall, strange beyond-the-mark views.

It's the kimchee I'm sure.

[mordorbund]

What do you expect from a mom blogger?

[Guest]

On 11/30/2017 at 5:50 PM, anatess2 said:

It's the kimchee I'm sure.

There's (Hiccup!) absolutely nothing mood (hic) enhancing or (hic) mind altering effects from kimchee.

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

There's (Hiccup!) absolutely nothing mood (hic) enhancing or (hic) mind altering effects from kimchee.

So, my friend didn't go with us to the movies because she has to stay home to cook the RANCID kimchee because that's the only way to make yummy cooked kimchee - use rancid ones.  I can't vouch for her sanity.