/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17561151]

How can this dude publish a high quality 1000 pages book every year while other authors struggle for years to write a single fantasy sequel?

[Anonymous No.17561159]

How could this dude read 1000 high quality pages every hour while other readers struggle for years to read a single fantasy novel?

[Anonymous No.17561169]

Besides Martim questionable writing here and there, the ser Fatso do make a good story and world thats make somewhat of sense, and character that are well writing.

Sanderson is just pure schlok, is not that bad, is like capeshit, its fun.

[Anonymous No.17561171]

>>17561151
>high quality
>high quality
>high quality
>high quality
>high quality
>high quality

[Anonymous No.17561175]

>high quality
I've never read Sanderson, but from what I've heard he is a lowbrow author who writes airport literature.
>while other authors struggle for years to write a single fantasy sequel?
Variety of factors. Some people work slower, some people are lazy, some people are perfectionists and take loads of time on a single sentence, some people just don't care about being creative and avoiding cliches. Idk.

[Anonymous No.17561182]

>>17561169
>ESL garbage post
learn english before posting here

[Anonymous No.17561236]

>>17561182
he's right though

[Anonymous No.17561249]

>>17561151
Autistic savant? Lots of money to hire ghostwriters? I don't know.

[Anonymous No.17561296]

>>17561169
Que cosa?

[Anonymous No.17561322]

>>17561151
Because it’s low quality.

[Anonymous No.17561386]

>>17561151
Probably because he writes what he enjoys instead of what he thinks will make a bunch of pretentious idiots masturbate over it.

[OP No.17561391]

>>17561151
>high quality 1000 pages book
B R U H...

[Anonymous No.17561414]

He probably writes a lot
Also >>17561171 zing, haha

[Anonymous No.17561442]

>>17561386
His books are really bad desu.

[Anonymous No.17561457]

>>17561296
Que coisa, amigo, não "que cosa".

[Anonymous No.17561466]

>>17561386
His books are just capeshit, he's either writing to the market or his tastes are so bland that they align exactly with it. Props to him for having the discipline to churn them out so fast though, it's genuinely impressive and people that say otherwise don't write

[Anonymous No.17561508]

F Gardner literally wrote 5 books in a year

[Anonymous No.17561527]

>>17561457
sopa de maccaco, uma delicia

[Anonymous No.17561543]

>>17561527
Realmente, sopa de macaco, é uma delícia, meu nobre confrade, porque se trata de uma iguaria única na culinária brasileira, presente apenas na Regiao Norte do país, onde se encontra um mescla da culinária ibérica e indígena e com uma pitada de sabor bantu.

[Anonymous No.17561570]

>>17561466
What’s truly impressive is how people spend money on his books.

[Anonymous No.17561675]

>>17561151
He’s a beast. He has very good concept execution and great pacing. Cant hate in Sanderson as he’s more successful and works harder than anyone in this board.

[Anonymous No.17561722]

>>17561675
>He has very good
>Cant
> in this board

[Anonymous No.17561791]

>>17561151
who???

[Anonymous No.17561811]

Way of Kings was one of the most poorly written pieces of shit I ever wasted money on. I can’t believe how mad your taste would have to be to be a fan of his

[Anonymous No.17561818]

Probably because he knows that the moment his high turnover rate stops, he'll become a nobody. He clearly knows that if he even takes a break for 6 months, he'll lose like 50% of his readership.

[Anonymous No.17562160]

Is this guy the DLC one?

[Anonymous No.17562355]

>>17561151
>high quality 1000 pages book

There is no such thing!
Show me the "high quality 1000 pages book" and I'll show you the fillers and clichés!

[Anonymous No.17562364]

>>17562355
holy based

[Anonymous No.17562386]

>>17561570
>spend money

I don't, just pirate that shit, thanks based Elena.

[Anonymous No.17562395]

>>17562355
Dude was blind how could he write?

[Anonymous No.17562422]

>Sanderson became more well known in late 2007 when Harriet McDougal, the wife and editor of author Robert Jordan, chose Sanderson to complete the final books in Jordan's epic fantasy series The Wheel of Time after Jordan's death.
>After reviewing what was necessary to complete the series, Sanderson and Tor announced on March 30, 2009, that a final three books would be published instead of just one.
kek

[Anonymous No.17562513]

>>17562355
Borges is unironically right. Novels are trash and like 90% filler. A quality story should only take about 30-50 pages.

[Anonymous No.17562529]

>>17562513
>Borges is unironically right
yes, many such cases

[Anonymous No.17562576]

>>17561151
By adding massive amounts of filler that should have been pared down during the editing process, but then just leaving it all in the final draft.
>>17561175
> airport literature
> Wikipedia: "An airport novel is typically a fairly long but fast-paced boilerplate genre-fiction novel commonly found in the reading fare offered by airport newsstands,'read for pace and plot, not elegance of phrasing'"
> Sanderson
> pace
lmao, he is absolutely not airport literature by that definition.

[Anonymous No.17562601]

>>17562395
he never learned braille either so he couldn't read
he either recited what he had in mind to his mom or his mom read to him
he actually says that this is one of the things that drove him towards poetry and short fiction
it's much easier to memorize short stories and poems than novels

[Anonymous No.17562617]

>>17562576
>>17562529
t.sandersoy

[Anonymous No.17562620]

>>17561151
>He thinks fantasy crap is high quality

[Anonymous No.17562633]

>>17562601
So the problem Borges had with long novel it was because he couldn't memories? So... it's hes was coping when he talked shit about long novels, kek.

[Anonymous No.17562651]

>>17562395
Ask Milton that, too.

[Anonymous No.17562660]

>>17562620
Lol this. It's amusing.

[Anonymous No.17563637]

>>17562395
>>17562601
>>17562633
No, no, no. Let me explain.

First:

- Borges became blind in his 50's or so. Then he started to write much more poetry than stories. He also used fixed forms because it was easier to memorize. His first books (Fictions, El Aleph etc.) were written when he could still see. His preference for short writing was a conscious aesthetic decision. Borges despised florid and overwritten works.
- He also used to say he kind of stopped reading new authors after becoming blind. According to Alberto Manguel, who was one of the people who read to him, Borges would reread (i.e., listen to) the same authors over and over.
- Regardless, Borges had a good memory. Manguel relates that he knew Kipling and Stevenson stories by heart, and Vargas Llosa says that his conferences were so clear and well-spoken that he seemed to have memorized it all (and you will notice this too if you listen to his Harvard conferences on YouTube). Manguel writes that Borges would ask him to read Heine (in German), and then, as Manguel read, he would recite it all along, every poem, by memory. It's as if he were just trying not to forget them.

From a thread from a while ago: >>/lit/thread/S16724121

>Question: Are you an frequent reader of novels?
>Answer: I am not a reader of novels, except for Stevenson, Conrad, Dickens, the Russian novelists. I don't read novels. Novels demand too much effort from me. Now a short story, a short story by Kipling, can be essential. Every word is usually essential. On the contrary, a novel has to justify itself with scenarios, with opinions, with dialogues that are not substantial.
>I begun my life by reading the tales of Grimm - one of the masters of humankind - and books from the Arabian Nights, in diverse translations, diverse languages. Novels, I've read only a few. I don't know the novels of Cortázar; I know the short-stories, and hold them in the highest regard.

[Anonymous No.17563706]

>>17563637
>In the course of a life dedicated mainly to books I have read very few novels, and in many cases only a sense of duty has made me find my way towards their last pages. I have always being a reader, and a rereader, of short-stories."

>And I have the impression that a long novel is not only excessive for the reader, who cannot read it at once, but also to the author himself. All of this is a repetition of what was said by Poe: that "There is no such thing as a long poem"; that a long poem is nothing but a succession of short poems; and that aesthetic emotion demands a single reading. I believe that the short-story is able to give us this aesthetic emotion. The novel, on the other hand, gives us a series of emotions, and leaves us only with its memory. I believe, furthermore, that in the short story, as practiced by Henry James, Kipling, Conrad and others, there is space for everything that fits inside a novel. That is to say: it can be as dense, as charged with complexities and intensities as a novel with a lot of enthusiasm. And there comes a moment in which one feel that this reading is, perhaps, less a pleasure than a duty. On the other hand, with the short story this does not happen. The short-story, like the short poem, can give us a sensation of plenitude continuously.

>The length of the novelistic genre does not conform either to the darkness of my eyes, nor to the brevity of human life. I can count the books - the Arabian Nights, let's say, or the Orlando Furioso - in which the essence itself is inseparable from the length, because they give us the certainty that we can lose ourselves in their pages as in a dream or a song; in general, however, abundance of pages is a promise of boredom or mere routine.

I believe he was correct.
To give an example, I was trying to finally read Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow today and I found myself struggling not with the strange beginning of the book, not with the bizarre figure of a giant Adenoid, which I liked, but rather with the amount of useless writing in it: "It is too late". "Cold as ice." "Take him by the gut". "Emptying his mind". These are clichés... This is not powerful writing. There are also too many adjectives. Still, there are great passages even at the beginning, but this is not the question: the question is that the non-essential is arbitrarily mixed with the essential, which slows down reading as well and annoys the critical reader.

[Anonymous No.17564059]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.17564081]

>>17561175
>I’ve never read Sanderson
Proceeds to give opinion

This is what is wrong with the world

[Anonymous No.17564107]

>>17563637
>>17563706
>I believe that the short-story is able to give us this aesthetic emotion. The novel, on the other hand, gives us a series of emotions, and leaves us only with its memory.
huh, I never considered that before, but in hindsight its kinda true

[Anonymous No.17564168]

>>17564107
That's true.

How much do you remember of the first chapter of a novel immediately before you start reading the last? Only a series of very weak memories remain... Only a scene or two, or an overall picture...

Also, another problem with novels is that after a few years you forget them. For instance, I remember only very little of Brothers Karamazov, which I've read ten years ago. On the other hand, with a short-story that I really like, I can easily reread all of it even at the bus.
The same applies to poetry: there are poems which I've memorized years ago and still know better than the novels I've read last week.

The novel demands too much time *and* it often contains many fillers. You spend a lot of time reading trash in order to get to the good stuff. Meanwhile, with a really good book of poetry, say Baudelaire's Fleurs du Mal, not a single second is lost. Every page is a treasure. Every word has been carefully crafted.

[Anonymous No.17564333]

>>17561151
he simply has a work ethic.
John C Wright writes almost as much AND writes good quality stuff.
Amazing what not being hypnotized by the smell of one's own farts can do for a writer.

[Anonymous No.17564368]

>>17562355
Short attention span

[Anonymous No.17564376]

>>17562355
High time preference

[Anonymous No.17564475]

>>17564368
Borges read the whole of Gibbon, the Arabian Nights, Ariosto...

He'd also memorize a lot, and give lectures in public which were so well-structured and clear that it sounded as though he was reading from a book, even though he was blind.
Clearly, he had a high attention span.

Also, I believe that novel readers have low attention *intensity*: they don't concentrate enough on what they're reading. If they did, they'd realize all the fillers, clichés, stock scenes, repetitions... In short, all the tricks that a novelist uses in order to make his book look very big and impressive.
What poetry and the short-story are able to do is precisely to get rid of all of that dead weight and give you only the essentials.

Great long books exist, of course, but they're rare, and usually take many years to write. Flaubert, for instance, spent his whole life writing, but published relatively few novels, precisely because he would give such a high amount of dedication to every single line. Even a short book like his Trois Contes took him more than a year to write, but every single page is good. James Joyce knew scenes of it by heart - like poetry, it can also be memorized, because it is so good.

[Anonymous No.17564847]

>>17561159
He read poetry more slowly, though. Not because he couldn't read fast, but because he didn't want to.

You can't read poetry fast. And preferentially you have to read it out loud.

[Anonymous No.17564922]

>>17561466
I'm sick of people saying "well I don't like, but it sure is impressive how much they write!" Ok, is it impressive how much bullshit McDonald's produces every year? Is the purpose of writing to produce plentiful helpings of troth slop for all the hungry piggies? Or is it something more? This philosophy misses the whole point of reading just like McDonalds misses the whole point of food.

[Anonymous No.17564930]

>>17564922
There is a whole industry of people who consume literature as if it were food.

I myself was part of it when I was younger. Only later did I develop an allergic reaction to junk writing.

[Anonymous No.17564994]

>>17564930
Honestly, I don't mind even mind that part. It's just that phrase that's annoying. I would read people read shit than nothing at all.

[Anonymous No.17565031]

>>17561151
His longest book is Oathbringer at approx. 450,000 words. Let's say he takes weekends off. That's approx. 260 writing days in the year. That comes out to 1730 words per day. If writing is your full time job, getting 1730 clean words in a day is not at all impressive honestly.

[Anonymous No.17565199]

>>17565031
What have you written? Nothing? Your opinion means nothing then, you stupid fucking retard. I don't even like sanderson, but the amount of "durr it's not THAT impressive blah blah blah" shit-spewing that takes place on this board, when none of you have published or even finished ANYTHING is comical and pathetic simultaneously. I hope it's just shitposting, but I imagine some of you actually have some sort of autistic delusion of grandeur that you could write like sanderson or grisham or king, yet just choose not to.

[Anonymous No.17565221]

secret morman stash of cocaine in utah they all tap into

[Anonymous No.17565243]

>>17562355
Infinite Jest

[Anonymous No.17565294]

>>17565243
Post some randomly chosen excerpt.

[Anonymous No.17566098]

>>17565199
Sorry, I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not making a statement about the quality of Sanderson's writing, which I actually think is quite good. But OP was asking about the rate at which he publishes, which is not all that incredible. If you are a professional writer, that's your job, and you put in 8 hours a day, then the idea of adding 1700 new clean words to your project on a daily basis is not very doable. It's not some kind of super human feat.

I should have been clearer because actually the point I was trying to make was with regard to the second part of the OP:
>while other authors struggle for years to write a single fantasy sequel?

The answer is they're not writing. GRRM isn't sitting his fat ass down at his desk and writing, simple as that. I like GRRM's books, but there's no real reason for it to take him so long except that he has no economic incentive to write faster, so he doesn't.

[Anonymous No.17566792]

>>17564081
Unironically this. My life improved a lot when I realized I could just not have an opinion about something if I never did any serious reading on it

[Anonymous No.17566825]

>>17565031
Your forgetting that he does multiple drafts, outlines, failed ideas, and has other corporate tasks. The drafting alone probably triples that daily word count

[Anonymous No.17566855]

>>17566098
>I like GRRM's books, but there's no real reason for it to take him so long except that he has no economic incentive to write faster, so he doesn't.
And honestly good for him. The man had to live sixty years on this accursed earth as a fat ugly nerd, on the inconsistent salary of a mediocre television writer. He's 70 years old and just watched his baby get hacked to fucking pieces by mediocre television writers, he's got millions of dollars and a beautiful home to retire to, and even gets to run his own little movie theater showing whatever movies he wants. He fucking made it and now he gets to retire and stop busting his ass writing for a living.

[Anonymous No.17567204]

>>17566825
>multiple drafts
>outlines
I doubt he does. Very few commercial writers do this. I'm sure he probably talks about outlining in those lectures that he does because that's the kind of thing aspiring writers want to hear. Even if he does, the point is that 1700 words is like two or three hours worth of work. So that leaves plenty of time in an 8-hour work day to account for everything else. If someone is taking 8 hours to write 1700 words then they are a glacially slow writer.

[Anonymous No.17567369]

>>17561722
Cant hate in retard anon

[Anonymous No.17568022]

>>17561151
>high quality
Lost all meaning.

[Anonymous No.17568656]

>>17566855
He should be honest about what he's doing. If he just wants to chill, he should cop the hate for abandoning them or outsource them.
He really reveals his character as a dishonest person by leading everyone on.