What Makes Prose GOOD? Tolkien, Sanderson, Jemisin, Rothfuss, Erikson | Professor Craig Explains

Is Rothfuss the best writer in fantasy? Is Sanderson a terrible stylist? Is Erikson too thick to enjoy? In today's video, Craig dives into a a few aspects of prose style that may explain why people enjoy one author's prose style over another's.
Support the show on Patreon: / legendarium
Visit www.thelegenda... to subscribe to the podcast
Join the Discord community: / discord
Twitter: / legendariumpod
Reddit: / thelegendarium
Instagram: / the_legendarium

[@melancholiac]

Probably worth mentioning that Tolkien was an Oxford Professor of Anglo-Saxon and before that had worked on dictionary etymology concerning English words of Germanic origin.

[@arolemaprarath6615]

I'm glad. I feel like when speaking English, I'm code switching with either French or Latin. Funny that English became a global tongue but is inherently hybrid.

[@SeiyaVenture]

Maybe for this is the indicate for the "tongue of the west" a mix up of latin an germanic , the greatest family of languange in the west. The spanish has more native language but is more dificult because arabic and native american languages influnces.

[@TVeldhorst]

And he did not enjoy the latin influences on the English language at all.

[@user-re1hy6if7d]

@@arolemaprarath6615 The inherently hybrid is exactly the one who can move from group to group--offers more potential "handles" for someone else to grasp. I grew up in an area where Spanish already influence by Nahuatl interacted with English already influenced by many other languages and their intermediates (Yiddish, Czech, German, Russian, Polish) and in a time when the fusion of Mexican and German/Czech music was producing conjunto and morphing beyond that to lots more out of the ranches and small towns, the guitars and accordions. English was already hybridizing, possibly even before the Romans got to Britain, and certainly with every subsequent invasion. I'm a fan of the OED and the etymology in there, available for any writer to play with.

[@PositiveOnly-dm3rx]

Tolkien's universe is just a ripoff of the bible. If he had spent as much time developing an original story, as he did playing with languages, maybe his stories would have made more sense. And he wouldn't have had to retcon things like the eagles.

[@timswabb]

Tolkien and Erikson are my favorites, so I guess I like long sentences and don’t much care about Germanic vs. Latinate words. Erikson’s writing is more modern than Tolkien’s, but I don’t mind. The key to long sentences is parallel structure. Here’s a prose quote from Erikson: “He was a man who would never ask for sympathy. He was a man who sought only to do what was right. Such people appear in the world, every world, now and then, like a single refrain of some blessed song, a fragment caught on the spur of an otherwise raging cacophony. Imagine a world without such souls. Yes, it should have been harder to do.” That’s a monster sentence in the middle, but it reads like a poem: Such people appear in the world, every world, now and then, like a single refrain of some blessed song, a fragment caught on the spur of an otherwise raging cacophony. Tolkien and Erikson both liked to write poetry and incorporated it in their fiction, but often their prose reads like poetry as well. And I like that.

[@huntedpadfoot]

Brilliant comment, I think you've nailed why Erikson's long sentences don't feel difficult to wade through, but instead I often take a step back to reread and admire the "view" so to speak.

[@brianlowe904]

Personally speaking, while I respect the craft so far as being considered good at it is a skill, that type is not appealing to me at all. To me the beauty of the word is the idea and how over time in a story we can start to have idea connect, contort, synthesize and evolve in the telling. There’s someone ik who’s a big fan of Tolkien and that style and as he’s a story teller at heart he very much tries to emulate Tolkien and I gotta say the story he tells are better when he’s not doing that.

[@timswabb]

@@brianlowe904 Here’s a bit of prose from Tolkien broken down like poetry: Suddenly the king cried to Snowmane and the horse sprang away. Behind him his banner blew in the wind, white horse upon a field of green, but he outpaced it. After him thundered the knights of his house, but he was ever before them. Éomer rode there, the white horsetail on his helm floating in his speed, and the front of the first éored roared like a breaker foaming to the shore, but Théoden could not be overtaken. Fey he seemed, or the battle-fury of his fathers ran like new fire in his veins, and he was borne up on Snowmane like a god of old, even as Oromë the Great in the battle of the Valar when the world was young. His golden shield was uncovered, and lo! it shone like an image of the Sun, and the grass flamed into green about the white feet of his steed. For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; and the darkness was removed, and the hosts of Mordor wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them. And then all the host of Rohan burst into song, and they sang as they slew, for the joy of battle was on them, and the sound of their singing that was fair and terrible came even to the City.

[@unpleasantpresence5854]

Without the inclusion of poetry in these drawn out descriptions, I feel I would quickly lose interest. Like a monotonous recollection of a boring day as opposed to a carefully crafted, picturesque, painting you can continue to look at without a boorish thought.

[@brianlowe904]

@@timswabb 2 things: 1. I prefer it formatted as poetry instead of the traditional paragraph format 2. Man I really need to re read the trilogy, it’s been too long

[@tenorsurfer87]

Brandon Sanderson had a great quote from a podcast I remember listening to where he described prose like glass on a window. Very rich and beautiful prose is like a stained glass window that is beautiful to look at (and read) but can obscure what is beyond the window a bit (the story/plot). And minimalist prose is like a clear window that's not noticable at all but also doesn't have it's own extra beauty. And he said it's up to each writer to choose what type of window they want to look theough. He also said that he was the kind of writer who looks through a clear window haha

[@ohifonlyx33]

that's fair. to me, i want to marvel at the art of stained glass, because the story is contained within the window. I am not looking outside. I am looking at the art.

[@SupremeDP]

@@ohifonlyx33 Guess that comes down to if you appreciate the writing or just the story behind it. And for a person that skipped every song-break in Tolkien's books, Sanderson is just my kinda writer.

[@rymdalkis]

That's a good metaphor. The best prose I've ever read was by Marcel Proust. It was absolutely stunning, but by God was it infuriating to discern what the hell he wanted to say.

[@ohifonlyx33]

@@SupremeDP I mean a stain glass window doesn't show you what is outside, but it tells a story of its own... the light filters through and illuminates the pictures. The artists job is to make something so vivid that it speaks to the observer... Its a work of art. The window is not particularly fancy. It's much simpler, but it lets you see the natural beauty and light in a plain way. It's job is to get out of the way and lets you see whatever is already outside. If the view is pretty enough and the window is panoramic, then that works quite well... although you may rather wish to simply step outside...

[@cubic_regent]

@@ohifonlyx33 man ended it with a "touch grass"

[@KrazyPi]

I gained an insane amount of respect for Rothfuss when I realized everything Felurian says in Wise Man's Fear is written in iambic pentameter. Some conversations with Denna as well.

[@jujubean9063]

The chapter where K’vothe got his pipes had some of the best prose I’ve ever read. The chapter was like a beautiful song holding you at attention in a state of tension as it slowly brought you to tears and the scene was essentially the same. It blew my mind. Ive read a lot of books, but never have I read a chapter quite like it. It’s by far the most beautiful chapter ever written, in my opinion.

[@GarthOJ]

@@seanmurphy7011 how's the view from that horse?

[@jujubean9063]

Sean Murphy, what makes you think I haven’t? I’ve read a ton of classics. Writing has evolved. The classics are masterpieces, but so what? I guess I’ll come to you in the future and make sure my subjective reaction to a book meets your standards. Since you are clearly cultured and that matters for some reason. I mean, I read fantasy mostly because I enjoy fantasy the most, but sure, let me read the classics instead and force myself to care. 🤷‍♂️. The classics are good, they aren’t for me though. I prefer fantasy and you’re an elitist.

[@mpoharper]

It was really lovely.

[@devinkipp4344]

You're not wrong, his writting is really good. The scene where he's walking with the girl, beautiful. His pacing is strange to me but his style makes up for it for sure. Also ignore the hater, "what I like is right and if you like something else you're wrong." Sounds like a pompous douchebag.

[@tr5676]

@@seanmurphy7011 you’re such a sad person….

[@anonymousleapyear5616]

I personally love CS Lewis’ style, it flows beautifully but he also incorporates plenty of more romantic sounding words and descriptions that honestly make the otherwise captivating story feel magical.

[@ScribblyDoodle]

What's cool about his writing is how much of his own character he inserts into it. For most writers that might be a bad thing, but CS Lewis pulls it off wonderfully

[@mistermakebelieve]

I appreciate why audiences, who enjoy modern literature with increased pacing, dislike Tolkien. But I also adore him. Where modern works are masterfully paced like a gourmet meal, Tolkien takes his time, presenting a home cooked meal by a comfortable fire.

[@Darkkfated]

As a true Hobbit would.

[@masonguthrie1257]

Yeah that was always my biggest problem. I forgot where I heard this but while many writers create their story like an iceberg with only the small but important information of the world sticking out of the water and in the story, Tolkien write a mountain where everything is put in but most of it is not important to the story. I can definitely appreciate the world Tolkien created but the way he wrote it took away too much pacing of the story for me to really enjoy reading it.

[@shauncarver9016]

I would say modern works are more like fast food where as classic works like more likea fine dinning four course meal.

[@masonguthrie1257]

@@shauncarver9016 I would disagree strongly with this idea. I think both are great in their own rights. To make one seem lesser by comparing it to fast food seems way too harsh. Both take a very skilled hand to do. P.S. while I may seem super annoyed I really am not and everyone is entitled to their own opinions of course.

[@shauncarver9016]

@@masonguthrie1257 I agree that both work hard. The comparison was more about the way they are presented. Most modren fiction is fast paced bouncing from event to evet, each part enjoyable and together makeing a meal. Where as classic tends to progress more deliberately with every part being more deliberately constructed to work together to create a more satisfying whole, though some of those parts can seem pointless or mundane.

[@alexsantos-hc4io]

As a non-native speaker i can say that Brandon's prose are way more comfortable to read and fully grasp the meaning of each sentence. And much better to translate too.

[@maximedurante7574]

Considering how repetitive it is yes I guess it makes the job easier

[@Duckfest]

Indeed. His style is so accessible, that I'm reading at a much higher pace than any book I've ever read (other than non-fiction, which is usually also fairly simple). Even though the prose is less colorful, I'm experiencing the story more at higher speed because I feel like I'm in the story, rather than being the spectator.

[@maximedurante7574]

@@Duckfest It is quite the depressing thought. I'm currently revising my entire production because it would seem that it's useless to strive to achieve technique. Accessibility > elegance.

[@pedrogonzales4364]

@@maximedurante7574 [accessibility > contrivance] Ultimately it depends on the intention of your writing.

[@maximedurante7574]

No, elegance requires a certain degree of vocabulary (precision) and ease for sentences to flow. It is the opposite of contrivance but it's more demanding on a reading skill level. In French, for instance, you can swap verbs around to avoid repetitions; you can also delete certain superfluous words (mainly articles). It makes sentences more nimble and concise, but readers are more likely to be stumped when they expect a word that isn't there.

[@stews9]

Tolkien was a linguist who deeply understood etymology. He used Germanic versus Latinate versus Finnish, of all things, to ground his various peoples in distinct vocabulary, and his descriptive paragraphs and other aspects of his own voice reverted to his own mix, which was certainly affected by his deep knowledge and awareness of language. He was up to more than merely communicating story to reader. / Please, by all means, do more of this sort of analysis, it's fascinating. Bravo, sir.

[@sirgoo9962]

I find Sanderson's prose to be very cinematic, more concerned with the scene than with the words describing it. My favourite prose I've read are Robin Hobb's and Joe Abercrombie's.

[@equdarkmatter-2621]

Robin Hobb is amazing

[@doctorpretender4944]

I agree. A man’s got to be realistic about these things.

[@Professor_Brie]

Cinematic is a good word for it. I don’t really pay attention to how he writes-nothing reads poorly, but I don’t notice anything particularly fancy either, it just gets the job done in a way that transports the story from the pages into my mind. His focus is clearly on simply conveying his stories, and his writing is more of a vessel for it (maybe, I haven’t exactly spent a ton of time thinking about this). His writing, for me, never distracts from what’s going on in the story, positively or negatively. I love stories and I love fancy writing, but I think I’d much rather read a book whose strength and focus is on the former rather than the latter (although I’m not saying either is better, and I haven’t even read these other author’s works so I don’t know for sure). Sanderson offers stories, and he delivers. If I want fancy writing, I’ll go look for fancy writing, instead of expecting it from someone who doesn’t focus on it.

[@militant_pacifist5900]

@@Professor_Brie this is an excellent take!!! his books are really fast-paced too in a lot of ways, and I think more drawn-out prose is better suited to slower novels

[@jumhed994]

Robin Hobb is great, and Abercrombie really enjoyable too. I love Patrick Rothfuss

[@Darm0k]

This was completely fascinating. Yes, please do more stuff like it. I think I tend to lean towards preferring slightly more plain and utilitarian prose. I like Tolkien, but his prose is so formal sounding it's hard for me to truly love it, even though the story and characters are very good. Rothfuss I like, but I'd say his prose doesn't get so flowery as to be distracting. There are other problems with Kingkiller besides the prose. Jemison was a little hard for me to get through. The woman is clearly incredibly talented, but I found it hard to like The Broken Earth. And Sanderson's prose might be a little too utilitarian, although it doesn't really bother me. Ultimately, if you give me good characters I can forgive a lot of weaknesses in prose. I love authors like Drew Hayes and Michael J. Sullivan. They excel at character work, even if their prose isn't top notch.

[@EclipseOfGod]

I agree with the good characters part but if the level of tolerance depletes before you get to seeing how good the characters are, then it doesn’t matter. I couldn’t get myself to read much of Lies of Locke Lamora even tho it was heavily recommended to me.

[@anonymousleapyear5616]

I very much agree. The characters are the lifeblood of most stories and as long they’re strong they can carry most weaker aspects of a book

[@seth-shaw]

I would be interested in a larger comparison of Sanderson's chapters against each other. Most of his novels that I've read switch character perspectives at chapter breaks, telling the story from their own perspective. I get the feeling that the prose is heavily influenced by the character's voice, characters who are each telling a story their way. It would be interesting to see if a statistical analysis reveals any significant variations across character voices or not.

[@cjtrouble]

Very true. His solider characters are a filtered prose. Meanwhile, sometimes his more noble characters have a bit of a poetic structure. Sometimes. Usually it's just an easy prose with Sanderson

[@mik3war1]

Very interesting. I can see some beautiful prose, and intellectual speech, which is beautiful in it's creativity within the fantasy realm, from the noble ladies like Shallan and the king's wit, in The Way of Kings series, and some strait forward communication from the soldier characters. Because I do remember there being some prose that really captivated me but it was far and few between, also, been a bit since I read Sanderson. I do like the straight forwardness and story progression pace that he typically has. I'm excited for book 5 in the stormlight archives series coming soon. yea, rock on, Brotha!

[@astrouphel]

I like Brandon's simpler, minimalist prose. I'm the kind of person that appreciates a good story and enjoyable characters, and that is what Brandon really delivers on.

[@Mclearmountain]

Coming off of Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson and starting Steven Erikson’s Malazan: Book Of The Fallen series has been a task and also awesome. I notice myself reading slower but it’s different in a way that I think I needed. Loving it.

[@dlasis]

Erikson's prose is beautiful, period. If you pay close attention to the content of each sentence, it will blow your mind. Sanderson may be accessible but he has the tendency to be annoyingly repetitive. You can skim through the entire page and still get the gist of what's happening.

[@Toporshik]

To be honest, as a former literature student, I would put more emphasis on quality than quantity when analysing prose styles. Does the author show mastery over tropes and figures? Are their metaphors fresh or overused? Is their paragraph structure comprehensive? Are they proficient in optimal usage of meaningful details in the right order? Statistics are fun, but I don't think that they give us the full picture.

[@RidleyJones]

Right, and on top of that to what extent and how successfully do they balance the semantic aspects of writing with the poetic aspects? Do they have a good command of rhythm, prosody, musicality, using unexpected turns of phrase without being unclear or ridiculous? Does "purple" or complex prose come across as pretentious and masturbatory, or does it come across as lyrically beautiful and surprising? Does less complex prose come across as low effort, un-varied, and flavorless, or does it come across as elegantly and deliberately crafted? There are great prose stylists and terrible prose stylists at all combinations of sentence length, word origin, etc.

[@Toporshik]

@@thescribe3184 out of the authors in this video I personally fall into Tolkien and Rothfuss camp. But it's hard for me to recommend literature based on prose, as I usually read in my native language. And style is what affected the most by translation. But in the last couple of years I would say that Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt and C.S. Levis I liked the most.

[@Toporshik]

@@thescribe3184 as far as I understand, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky have pretty good translations. But they are pretty culturally loaded. To fully understand them, you might want to familiarise yourself with 19th century Russian history and political climate, traditions and history of Russian monarchy and Orthodoxy. It's hard to understand Dostoevsky, if you don't know that he was sentenced for his political activism, later heavily influenced by Russian Orthodox tradition and actively debating with political thinkers of his time. If you want to know more great Russian stylists, I would suggest perhaps trying Turgenev, Chekhov, Bulgakov and Nabokov.

[@vapx0075]

This was the discussion I thought I was going to get from this video. I thought he was actually going to shine a little ray of truth on what might make prose good. Why would I think that? What a chump!

[@darkengine5931]

​@@RidleyJonesFrom my blunt perspective, Tolkien is deeply in the masturbatory camp, so often contriving his prose to force the use of poetic devices in ways that interfere with clarity and often lead to redundancies. Example: >> [...] neither quill nor feather did it bear [...] That's obviously bassackwards to force the assonance of "feather" and "bear". It's like saying, "He neither had legs nor feet to retreat." I pick on this example but there are countless, and Tolkien's prose strongly suggests to me a poet more concerned with how they sound than what they're actually saying. It sounds very pretty but what it's saying is actually extremely dumb and ill-conceived and very stupid (I hope you got what I did there).

[@brodymercer8166]

Robert Jordan's prose in the Wheel of Time is pretty top notch, although he tended to get a bit too heavy and longwinded in the whole describing things aspect, especially in his later books. "His eyes on the reflection, he was surprised when Red suddenly stopped. On the point of urging the bay on, he realized that they stood on the edge of a clay precipice, above a huge excavation. Most of the hill had been dug away to a depth of easily a hundred paces. Certainly more than one hill had vanished, and maybe some farmers’ fields, for the hole was at least ten times as wide as it was deep. The far side appeared to have been packed hard to a ramp. There were men on the bottom, a dozen of them, getting a fire started; down there, night was already descending. Here and there among them armor turned the light, and swords swung at their sides. He hardly glanced at them. Out of the clay at the bottom of the pit slanted a gigantic stone hand holding a crystal sphere, and it was this that shone with the last sunlight. Rand gaped at the size of it, a smooth ball-he was sure not so much as a scratch marred its surface-at least twenty paces through. Some distance away from the hand, a stone face in proportion had been uncovered. A bearded man’s face, it thrust out of the soil with the dignity of vast years; the broad features seemed to hold wisdom and knowledge." - From Chapter 20 of The Great Hunt

[@azurepulse1870]

Author you didn't cover that would probably help to look at as well: Robin Hobb. Aside from that, I don't know how I feel about some small bits of it being tied to prefering word choice origins as a particular influence. Maybe more related to what is commonly used in your area geographically or the type of required reading you were exposed to in English classes. I think for me, it comes down to how much is and isn't said in as few words. Tolkien feels very wordy, but very basic as well. A lot of words for very basic actions descriptions to build up the idea that the path they took was very narry and impossible to turn around and go back. However it does fill in more detail to directly immerse you in the terrain- soft and boggy ground, springs, banks, brooks, weedy bed, etc. Brandon's describes the terrain in a broad way which your imagination can fill in however you like- things like plateaus, highstorms, poor cover. Tolkien's description meanders the whole scene, while brandon's is more focused on details that concerns the characters and the plot more. Basics of what it looks like and how it relates more directly to what the character is doing and what they want to do.

[@overtonwindowshopper]

The Germanic/Latinate hypothesis is intriguing. Would be curious to see a more detailed NLP analysis of these texts and compare them to semantic judgments NL and L2 English speakers of similar Germanic & Latinate sentences

[@CaptainAugust]

Tad Williams memory Sorrow and Thorn series as well as shadow March is my favorite style of prose. It's poetic and beautiful but also accessible and easy to understand.

[@suzyredfern4851]

The fact that you nailed Erickson’s style purely by these metrics, never having read the books, lends a huge credit to the validity of these criteria as a measuring tool. The Malazan books are notorious for their density and eloquence, which makes them a joy and a challenge. I enjoy Sanderson, Rothfuss, and Tolkien as well, and the information here will add a lot of insight into why I feel the way I do about each of them. Thank you for sharing!

[@ChristianFu11er]

I really enjoy Erikson’s writing, and it makes my kinda sad how much shit I typically see it get, but I think a lot of people have an aversion to the combination of dense writing AND dense world building at the same time, which is a reasonable opinion

[@jharkey3]

I think you're more or less right about the combination of dense writing and worldbuilding. One of the first things that comes to my mind is the number of names, which I find difficult to keep track of. He also doesn't just paint the world for you--he gives it to you as puzzle pieces you have to assemble yourself. With regard to writing, the biggest challenge to me is the amount of subtext he includes. You have to read between the lines a LOT. All of this put together just means the reader has to do a lot of lifting that most authors don't require. I don't love it myself. Some might argue that harder work means greater rewards... Depends what you're after I guess. I certainly prefer driving to the gym to get my workout over hiking there. XD But I respect it and I can see what some people love about it.

[@brushwagg7735]

I ended up reading the whole Malazan series but it took a lot to get into it. Gardens of The Moon was rough and I was absolutely lost pretty quickly. Then I sort of picked up Bonediggers at the library because I was broke and needed some chonky but light reading and he really learns how to do his thing and present all the information he wants while getting much better at giving context clues and types by everything together. I love how it all comes together even if I chuckle at how silly the power-scaling gets. Not every character has to be a nigh-immortal tragic hero and also a dragon. But I had a lot of fun and Memories of Ice stands as my favorite fantasy novel.

[@danielgwynne7266]

@@brushwagg7735I think that has more to do with the fact that immortality itself is pretty tragic because the amount of immortals in malazan I would say is maybe 5% of the characters give or take 2%

[@brushwagg7735]

@@danielgwynne7266 it’s not like the mortals have it any easier, though. But all those dang caveman zombies bum me out

[@JonBrase]

Tolkien's prose flirts with meter at times without breaking into outright poetry (see the opening of the Battle of the Pellenor Fields), and he also throws in conventions of Germanic poetry. Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli meeting Eomer follows the "Who are you stranger?" -> "I'm , and this is why I'm a badass" convention that you see in Germanic poetry when a foreigner runs across a local patrol, including the whole "stranger should identify himself first" bit of manners. It also begins with a line of straight-up Germanic alliterative verse: "What néws from the nórth, / ríders of Róhan?"

[@nothingiseverperfect]

This is super interesting. As a reader of Sanderson, and someone who just started reading more, I can say that for some reason, his books just flow like water. I don’t catch myself having to reread something, or ask myself “wtf did that just say?!” But I also really enjoyed ur Tolkien reading so I’m wondering where I stand!

[@jakecarlstad6192]

Read more fantasy outside of Sanderson and I think you'll gain more perspective. I think his prose is actually very clunky and inelegant. He repeats a lot of phrases and is a very workman and unartful style. Someone like Robin Hobb or Fonda Lee is much smoother read because they are accessible but also have a much more deliberate pen.

[@FullCircleStories]

I did my Bachelors in English Linguistics and some postgrad study in Old English, so this was a really enjoyable watch for me. I'm by no means an expert so I don't have any edgy internet genius comments to throw in. I do have some thoughts to throw in, but not the edgy ego kind. One factor I think is important to bring up is the author's awareness of the criteria in the video, namely the origin of words. If the author isn't consciously aware of the origin of the words they're using, I think that's relevant. The broader angle you took, conversational vs poetic, is a good way to frame it because they are most likely not thinking toooooo deeply about the origin of each word. So either awareness of word origin or awareness of writing style is a good factor to consider in a follow up video. What are their intentions when writing? What does "writing poetic" vs "writing conversational" mean and how different is this meaning between Tolkein's time and ours? Also, Tolkein is actually kind of hard to compare with modern authors IMHO. Tolkein vs his contemporaries might give some insights. But English has changed a lot since his day, every year we move farther from the mid-20th century, and every year that language becomes more dated, falling out of use. I don't think using his writing was unfair though. Overall, cool video idea, lots to think about! I'd definitely watch more.

[@thefantasynuttwork]

As someone who covers prose a lot in his reviews, I thought his was a great video. Would love to see more.

[@mushyhallow]

I'm not an avid reader, but I find the process of writing interesting. You explained this really well and engaged me! Thanks

[@TheLegendarium]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@GideonCyn]

So refreshing to find a channel that actually talks about the text rather than the story being told. The way a book is written and how competently it is written is far more important (to me) than any ideas or plot points it presents. I think it was Jim Butcher that said "A good author can take a bad idea and make a good book, whilst a bad author can take a good idea and make a bad book" i think sanderson was quoting him in one of his free youtube lectures.

[@Maidaseu]

That's about plotting not prose.

[@tripwire202]

I think it's about both. Good prose and good plotting can make almost any idea wonderful. With just good plotting, that's more of a struggle.

[@davids2368]

I've got to say I was intially unconvinced that Germanic words vs Latin was a big factor but you've won me round a little. For me I feel like I know if a book is well written if there is a high percentage of prose in comparison to dialogue, for example the worst examples of YA novels tend to have pages and pages of dialogue with a little description either side of conversations. I don't know if theres a point when too much prose hurts my enjoyment, there probably is though. The other two aspects you mentioned are definatley sentence structure and punctuation. Also, I know loads of people who hate the more adjective riddled styles like a HP Lovecraft and find it a bit annoying and forced.

[@thanosthanos3801]

The dialogue to description is an awful way to measure prose quality. Take, for example, William Gaddis, who writes so much dialogue in his novels to the point where there’s more of it than descriptions. But he’s considered one of the greatest modern prose writers, and uses dialogue to its fullest extent. Although I would agree that, if an author literally cannot describe for shit, then they are a bad prose writer and I could definitely see someone trying to cover this up with dialogue.

[@Floobie2956]

I'd never thought to try and quantify prose quality. Seems a daunting task and I think you did an admirable job. I think what makes prose truly stand out to me is how well it evokes the feeling of the situation being portrayed, which is impossible to quantify 😆 It just becomes "I know it when I see it" which helps no one. So, yeah, I'd love to see more discussions about prose. I'd recommend looking at some passages from R. Scott Bakker because his is the best fantasy prose I've readin recent memory.

[@DarrenHuckey]

I really appreciate this video! I’m a writer/author but have only published non-fiction works to date. I’m currently working on a fantasy trilogy and find Sanderson’s works extremely fluid and inspirational. I tried the audio book for The Name of the Wind and thought it was horrible, but that could have been because of the narrator. I plan to read the print version to give it another chance. Anyway… I’ve been struggling over writing in my own natural writing voice or trying to be more stylistically similar to be of these authors. Your video helps me see that my own “voice” isn’t quite as important as my story because different people will love different things no matter which way I go. Thanks again!

[@superdrag65]

Loved this, please do more videos like this and don’t be afraid to do deeper dives.

[@TheLegendarium]

Thanks! Not afraid of the depth. Just the time. 😂 🕜🕣🕥🕓 kzbin.info/www/bejne/aYq3c4msm8yde6c

[@chickentenders531]

PEASE MAKE MORE OF THESE KINDS OF VIDEOS!! This was incredibly informative and helpful for me as a fiction writer. It helps to analyze the science fiction/fantasy books I read for fun. That way, I'm soaking more of them into my writing toolbox.

[@monolith94]

There are few fantasy writers who really have what I consider a strong grasp of prose. Gene Wolfe gets there. When I think of good prose, I think of Wilkie Collins, Nabokov, Proust, Borges. Fantasy writers can often have very good prose, but I find that it's hard for them to reach really high up in terms of their style, I think because they're more in love with adventure and the world that they're building than they are captivated by a love for language itself. You read the Narnia chronicles, and the prose is extremely simple, as it is for children, however for simple prose I find it to be stunningly effective.

[@oscarchavezavellan2738]

I think that was the point of Narnia, as far as I know IT WAS made for children

[@dcaf94]

Wolfe was indeed incredible. If you want to check out some more SFF with excellent prose, look into Kai Ashante Wilson, Arkady Martine, Alix Harrow, and Matthew Stover. All excellent, all with very different styles.

[@rhysgriffiths9675]

Gene Wolfe is so good

[@e.matthews]

Currently falling deeply in love with Jeff VanderMeer's prose in the Ambergris series. I am constantly delighted by his turns of phrase, his gorgeous word choices. ❤

[@imokin86]

Thank you, this was very informative! Structurally, it was interesting to see that Tolkien has a lot of "this and that" constructions, which makes his sentences longer, but not so much more complex. Jemisin seems to be the most deliberately sparse writer, she gets to the point first and adds flavour later. Erikson packs a lot into each sentence, he likes adding new details, as opposed to describing the same thing with more words.

[@SilverDragonAcademy]

Really enjoyed that analysis. From my experience with all of those books mentioned aside from "The Fifth Season", a lot of my prose preference has to do with pace. I found Tolkein just REALLY "slow" like it takes 1 whole paragraph to say: "The hobbits descended a hill with a small river alongside them". Which just annoys me to no end. Don't get me wrong, I like vivid description but it has to be concise and well considered. Sanderson is exceedingly approachable along with Rothfuss. Whereas Erikson just has DENSE prose with a lot of subtext at times that can make it difficult to read.

[@gurjindersingh3843]

The pacing should be mixed, depending on the plot. He is not writing a thriller. One paragraph to describe one action in some pages and one paragraph to describe 20 actions in other pages to keep the reader interested. But on average, it should be 5-10.

[@jgamer2228]

I spoke to someone reading Brandon Sanderson for the first time and they said it felt like some of the conversations/dialog was from the modern day and not in the sort of time period you would expect.

[@unknownperson6689]

I am an Indian here. Of the books listed I have read 2 of them. Sanderson and Rothfuss. While Sanderson's prose isn't as poetic as Rothfuss, there isn't anything wrong or alarming with his writing. Both give me almost the same impression. And also Sanderson tends to have more active scenes then Rothfuss so there's that to consider as well.

[@cheesypoohalo]

I'd love to see you delve deeper with this. Surprised you didn't use Game of Thrones, and compare it to some young adult fantasy like Maze Runner or something. A full chart breakdown of lots of books would be great to see, and might be a very good way for people to find more writing they enjoy.

[@claudiaiovanovici7569]

Could you please also post the analyzed paragraphs for Jemisin, Rothfuss and Erikson as well? It would be nice to have a comparison. Or perhaps all five, for that matter. It might be easier to compare them when we see them written versus hearing only two of them.

[@jasonuerkvitz3756]

Yes, I was hoping for this too. I read the first book Erickson wrote and didn't care for it. Read _The Name of the Wind_ and loved it. Have Jemisin's first book, and only read the first few pages. I liked them, but it's buried deep on my queue.

[@claudiaiovanovici7569]

@@jasonuerkvitz3756 I must say I am quite the fan of Erikson. But, like he says, his style of writing is that of short stories, which means that there is a low of information packed in subtext and small details. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, reading with that sort of level of attention to detail. Reading the first book of The Malazan Book of the Fallen is like reading the first chapter of any other book. It doesn't tell you much. For me, it has been the most amazing literary journey of my life, and I am pretty sure that nothing will ever come close to it ever again. But since the punch line is not delivered until the last book, it's hard to evaluate until you read the complete series. He wrote the first book almost ten years before the rest of the series, and some people say it is his least good book. Or at least that his skill as an author has matured significantly until he continued writing. Maybe you could give it another try someday and see how it goes. Perhaps the first three books, so you can have a clearer image of what is going on. You might discover a jewel.

[@jasonuerkvitz3756]

@@claudiaiovanovici7569 It was mainly that I had zero connection with any of the characters. I think there was something in the choice of his language in certain passages as well and the work felt as if it was written by two separate people. Perhaps it was written at two vastly different times, which is also possible. I thought that the passages about the character chained to the great wagon in his version of Hell or Purgatory was intriguing and I liked that he wanted to actually put the pantheon of gods directly in the story influencing the characters. It was certainly different than the ambiguity of gods in Martin's work. I also liked the mysterious vampire/elf/whatever the heck guy that lived in the floating castle. I mean the title was superb, _Gardens of the Moon_. There was a strange ending with what read to me a recap of a D&D adventure he had played with some friends. There was a riveting chase sequence over rooftops and then some terrible threat of old gas lines beneath the city. But did I care? Nope. I had zero connection to anyone. I didn't care if they won or lost because I really didn't know what it was they were fighting. It's as if I was reading young Erickson spliced with older Erickson. It sort of reminded me of movies by Quentin Tarantino. Think Inglorious Basterds. That movie had the most bizarre split personality. Incredibly fascinating story about a Nazi manhunter and a young Jewish girl hiding from him at a Cinema she runs, and then splatterpunk. Weirdest self-sabotage imaginable. I have Erickson's next book in the series, and since the Gene Wolfe _Soldier of Mist_ is missing the mark, maybe I will consider reading the Erickson book. And there's 8 more, right? Ugh. If it doesn't get better fast, it won't make sense reading any further when there are so many other books old and new available for reading. Plus, there's always re-reading Cormac McCarthy's glorious works. Thanks for the reply.

[@claudiaiovanovici7569]

@@jasonuerkvitz3756 Just a piece of advice, if you read the first book a long time ago, maybe a re-read would help. The world he writes in is huge and the second book takes you to a different continent and a different set of characters. All in all, there will be four sets of characters and only after the fifth book the stories begin to merge, so it requires some patience. And you were right about the D&D feel. He has been playing with Ian Cameron Esslemont, his co-author in the Malazan universe, for at least 20 years before he wrote the books. And he releases the information needed to understand what's what gradually. That's one of the things people fault him for since they want to understand everything from the get go. He himself said that one of the things he regrets about the first book is that he was a little too cagy with the information. The second book, Deadhouse Gates, is one of my favorites. But it's also very heavy, full of sorrow and pain and the ugliness of human condition. A book about heroism and hardship and loyalty, the bitchiness of politics and the burdens of command. The kind of book that got me crying more than once. It was inspired in part by a real historical event, a march of a large number of refugees through enemy territory on a very long distance, defended by a small group of soldiers. I think it happened in Pakistan during the first or second world war, but I honest to god can't remember the details of this other than it's inspired from a real event. I really hope you give it a try and that this time it hooks you. Thank you for engaging in conversation :)

[@claudiaiovanovici7569]

@@jasonuerkvitz3756 I apologize if I seem insistent, i don't mean to do that. But as luck would have it, I just ran into this video today. It talks about what kind of series this is, what are the common misconceptions about it and what to expect when reading it. And it explains in short all these things way better than I ever could. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZDJo2uvgtWHrKc

[@bryson2662]

I think something that stood out to be when you were reading BrandSand was the telling not showing nature of that paragraph which is a common criticism of BrandSand

[@susanscott8653]

Something I noticed about the Sanderson paragraph was they were - I think the term is "passive voice" - that is, we were being told by someone who had heard it from someone else. It also dropped briefly Into second person "You couldn't..." as opposed to Tolkien "they could not climb out either forwards or backwards..." which keeps us with the characters. Hope I have made myself clear there. It would be interesting to hear a comparison of female writers and those in different genres. I enjoy Ellis Peters and Philippa Gregory as historical authors who create good atmosphere in their work, although working in different periods.

[@kb-ih7ni]

Just started watching your channel, and I gotta say, your library is one of the most amazing collections I’ve ever seen. I can only hope to achieve half of that

[@marlaeningles3788]

Yours is such a great and necessary commentary. It was funny to see your comment on the first paragraph being the one an author would focus so much. This happened to me. I was so impressed and loved so much and read and read both in English and in Spanish the first chapter and the THREE SILENCES in The Name of the Wind. This had so much imagination specially thinking that this is silence !!! And Patrick Rotfuss just imagined so much and wrote it so beautifully. By the way, and this is just personal, I really enjoyed it so much in Spanish, my mother tongue, and the only reason I searched for it in the two languages was because i loved this intro so much. Please keep making these videos, so original. Helloes from Mexico City.

[@caseyhilsee1354]

Fascinating video! The comparisons were interesting. I’d love to see more in depth analysis with some other authors added in. Great work, as always!

[@user-jg5ie8rc1s]

I think it may all boil down to subjectivity and opinion, but I literally know nothing about reading and writing. I've only been doing it for forty or so years, and I still have so much to learn on the subject.

[@jeanneige216]

I've been trying to grasp what a prose meant for some months now, and i feel that you gave me a big piece. Thank you dude.

[@pablosf]

Great video!! I really loved it! I am Spanish but I have read Rothfuss' books in English because I am a huge fan of his prose

[@javierdsanandres9879]

Really insightful teachings. Thank you. You had me craving for the writing samples of the other authors you analyzed. I'd watch that extended video from you!

[@PivotGuardianDZ]

This type of video is exactly what I've been looking for! Are there any similar resources on the topic of prose style/analysis?

[@twiddlinbits]

It's not where the words came from that makes Sanderson so bad. It's what he does with them. Look at your example passages. Tolkien's adjective laden description expresses the characters' impressions and experience of their surroundings. Sanderson's narration, on the other hand, is an omniscient info-dump. He's not so much telling a story as telling us *_about_* a story. Also, good story tellers illuminate characters through interactions, while Sanderson resorts to internal monologues instead. When his characters do speak, they tend to spit out character notes. "He's the kind of guy who ..." "You're changing." "She would never ..." "He's a good man."

[@Seanbo88]

Very interesting video, and thoroughly helped me pinpoint why I have such a hard time with Tolkien's flowery, long descriptions and love something like Robert E Howard's fast-paced, visceral style instead.

[@Johanna_reads]

Interesting video! While I have an intuitive sense of what prose I enjoy, my subconscious mind might be measuring several factors such as what you described in this video. I wish you had shown the Rothfuss and Erikson passages you selected. I’m currently reading Malazan Book of the Fallen and love Erikson’s writing style!

[@TheLegendarium]

You know, I thought briefly about adding a sort of appendix to the video, after the patron credits, where I just read all 10 passages and show their stats. But it was already well over 10 minutes and probably would have hit 20 at that point. I just didn't have the time. But you can see which ones they are and look them up!

[@Johanna_reads]

@@TheLegendarium I can completely understand that and really appreciate the work you did on this video! I just subscribed and am excited to watch your future content.

[@AnotherTurning]

This is really fascinating. As you acknowledge, this is a pretty narrow way to analyze in terms of "what makes good prose," but it does create a really interesting comparison. My one complaint would be that you say you chose descriptive paragraphs to get the author's voice, not the character's. I think this discounts that many authors alter their prose for characters. Rothfuss writes differently in "Slow Regard" than he does in his other books because the perspective is different, for example. To find a more "average" idea of the voice of an author, you'd have to find samples from different characters. This is really cool though, and I look forward to more analysis like this!

[@charrier18]

This is very interesting. I love Brandon Sandersons style of writing. I honestly don't like flowery writing. I read books for the plot and I feel like "beautiful" writing distracts me from what's happening. I don't read books to be wowed by the language. I also have a short attention span so I want the author to get straight to the point in order to hold my attention. Ive tried both a Rothfuss book and an Erickson book and I couldn't make it past the first few chapters. Judging from this graph I should probably try a Jemisin book. Also, yes I'd love to see more videos like this.

[@fantasyfan8788]

I feel as though Brandon Sanderson prose doesn't get to the point. He says in a paragraph what cleverer prose would convey in a sentence. I find him very difficult to read. Especially his esrlier works. I barely got through Mistborn, it was so bogged down and boring. I want to read Stormlight Archive but hit a slump.at book 2. Good story but bad writing. I think it needs mqjor editing down

[@SupremeDP]

​@@fantasyfan8788 It's interesting to think about how one might feel that way. As far as I've read him, he's an incredibly efficient writer, and I feel like even though his books are really long, it's because a ton of stuff happens in them. There's barely any "fat" to his writing at all. I don't see what could you edit out in terms of just prose, without altering the narrative.

[@SonofTiamat]

You're better off not reading Rothfuss anyway. There's no story; just a lot of pointless meandering while the protag talks about how awesome he is at everything

[@robsilver8942]

Well done sir. Please more of this, you have yourself a new fan in me. However, I must insist as a "fantasy fan" it is your duty to read some Erikson.

[@linjicakonikon7666]

I did. Boring as hell.

[@sherizaahd]

It's funny, I never realized that Sanderson uses so many contractions outside of dialogue, but that's probably because I only listen to his books rather than reading them off the page. I intend to read the leather-bound copy of The Way of Kings whenever I get it though, so maybe I'll have a different opinion of his writing after I read it on the page.

[@hitzkooler15]

You know, as much as I like this video, it doesnt really say much about the writing style of these authors

[@hemslonnigum]

I agree… fascinating as this analysis is, something about it feels too simplified; reducing prose to a mathematical equation isn’t very conclusive. But he does say as much in his intro.

[@Phoboskomboa]

Sanderson isn't writing medieval fantasy. It's basically science fiction. It would be nonsensical and distracting to translate language from another planet to how people spoke hundreds of years ago on Earth. Medieval fantasy is fine, but I get so annoyed that everyone assumes it's the baseline.

[@CatastrophicDisease]

Outstanding analysis. I wonder how this would look if one took all of these authors' non-dialogue writing and see if these samples hold up. Ironically, though I love the Malazan series, I prefer the more poetic, Germanic-heavy prose and wish Erikson had leaned more into it. The use of Latinate words in Malazan (the one that springs to mind is the word "notion," which is used a ton in the series) could be jarring at times given the fantasy setting. Even despite that, though, I think Erikson's prose is good; he manages to paint such vivid pictures, which is more important at the end of the day. Conversely, Rothfuss's word choice is beautifully poetic, but I absolutely could not stand The Name of the Wind. Story, characters, and world-building are what it comes down to at the end of the day.

[@anactualbear5683]

Loved this video. It dissected the writing in an interesting quantifiable way, and so much writing advice is more qualitative than not.

[@Ayyavazi13]

Solid content on a topic other authortubers seem to ignore. Props to you sir.

[@oleghrozman4172]

Authors/Writers with the best prose: James Joyce, Franz Kafka, Lawrence Durrell, Hans Henny Jahnn, Nabokov, Marguerite Yourcenar, Hermann Hesse, Robert Walser, John Cowper Powys, Alfred Doblin, Gustave Flaubert, Proust, Gene Wolfe, Andre Gide.

[@morganainsleymusic]

Just finished the Witcher series and was left wondering why I just didn’t connect as much with it. This helped explain so much. I did my own analysis of Sapkowski VS these authors and found he is very much similar to Sanderson in style. I lean much more towards Rothfuss, Hobb and Lynch in my preference for prose style. Sanderson makes up for his prose with amazing Worldbuilding and concepts, but I didn’t feel that payoff as much in Sapkowski which left me not really invested in the Witcher series. I’d love to see more authors analysed in this way on this channel, as well as looking at dialogue and other ways writing styles differ.

[@morganainsleymusic]

My quick analysis for Robin Hobb: 196 words, 20 avg sentence, 12% adj/adv, 86% germ, 14% Latin And Andrzej Sapkowski (Witcher series) - granted the original book isn’t written in English: 78 words, 13 avg sentence, 15% adj/adv, 77% germ, 23% Latin

[@user-re1hy6if7d]

Descriptive prose used to be more prominent in fiction writing because--before movies, television, and the internet--readers had to use their own imaginations to visualize settings. Victorian novels are full of long descriptive passages describing landscapes, animals, plants, buildings, people, clothing, furniture...because most people had never seen even a painting of those places, people, things. This began to change with the advent of movies filmed in "exotic" locations, and now readers have been saturated with visual images from early childhood. Yes, description's still needed--but less of it, and many writers (including me) trickle-feed it in with non-descriptive phrases and sentences. We're told (by editors and sometimes by readers) that readers get bored with, will skip, long descriptive passages. Tolkein grew up in a world still full of primarily written descriptions of places; Sanderson grew up with movies & TV. But to me there's another, and more important (for fiction) difference between the Tolkein and Sanderson paragraphs and that's in the service of drawing the reader into the story. Sanderson's paragraph describes a place as if giving a briefing to someone--a neutral, undefined voice talking to "somebody" also undefined. It's facts. Tolkein's paragraph immediately places the reader with characters going somewhere and created suspense and discomfort...they're in a fold, they can't get out with their baggage, they have to go downward, it's getting darker and narrower and wetter...you have characters, action, suspense, threat, all produced by the description. As a reader I felt as if I were *in* that possible trap, that fold of ground closing in. Sanderson does finally mention the potential of "patrols" that sometimes kill the inquisitive...but (in that single paragraph) I had no feeling of impending danger...I was in a room or tent getting a briefing from someone speaking about a place where danger might come, but I wasn't experiencing the place. It was still abstract, not concrete. Since I prefer immersive fiction--like to fall into a story and come out the other end disheveled and surprised to be still an ordinary person in an ordinary house only it's hours or days later--I prefer Tolkein to Sanderson in this instance. Tolkein's description works for me because it sucked me in emotionally, not just factually. As a writer, that's the kind of story I like to write. Even in detective fiction (which is another of my favorite genres though I don't write in it) , l like best the writers who quickly engage me in the world of the story, descriptions that convey the effect of the setting on the characters. Not so much whether it's fancy or plain, Germanic or Latinate, but whether it connects to mind, heart, and soul...and how it does that is more than sentence length, word origin, or anything easily measured. In fantasy, the descriptions in Keith Roberts' PAVANE and Alan Garner's THE OWL SERVICE--and in more mainstream, Daphne du Maurier's in REBECCA and THE KING'S GENERAL are worth looking at.

[@TheLegendarium]

Excellent comment, thanks for the contribution!

[@MatStevens]

At least between the example paragraphs, I agree with your assessment. Tolkien's passage was much more immersive, while Sanderson's was more dry. Sanderson is definitely capable of more immersive writing in certain scenes, but he drops into this dry tone for huge sections of his books. On the other hand, while Tolkien's passage brought you more into the visceral emotions of the scene, in my opinion, it still could have been cut down and accomplished the same goal, perhaps even more effectively. "scrambled and stumbled" -why not just "scrambled?" Doesn't that already evoke the sense of stumbling? "impossible to climb out of again, either forwards or backwards" -If it's impossible to climb out of, of course it's impossible both forwards and backwards. "growing strong and noisy, flowed and leaped, swiftly" -of course a brook "flowed," and if you already stated it was "strong," then of course it flowed "swiftly." "Noisy" is good, because it brings you more into the scene by evoking your sense of hearing. And I'm guessing "leaped" is meant to make you vizualize the roughness of the current, splashing against rocks, etc. But I find it an odd word choice that doesn't convey it's meaning very clearly. All that said, Tokien's passage was still much more immersive and interesting to read than Sanderson's. But if certain "metrics of prose" had been reduced, I feel it could have been even better.

[@michaelgilson7959]

Erikson: This is probably some thick writing to wade through. Pretty spot on.

[@ShadowRoxas10]

I just discovered your channel through this video and I'm hooked! Please continue making videos analyzing prose with as much depth as you're willing. It's remarkable how little fantasy prose videos there are on booktube - search "best fantasy prose" or "top prose in fantasy" and hardly anything comes up. My personal theory for this is that prose is too difficult and nebulous a subject for many to cover, but you just showed how it can be done well. I think you have a real opportunity to fill an important niche if you continue with this sort of content. I'm really hoping you do because this was great! One question I immediately have after this video is: what is the best way for someone to perform the germanic/latinate analysis you did here? Is there a better way than searching word-by-word "is ____ germanic?" and if not, "are there germanic alternatives to ___?" I'd love to analyze my own writing along these lines and am wondering what the best way to do that would be. Keep up the great work!

[@TheLegendarium]

Thanks for the kind words! Check out etymonline.com for a quick resource.

[@firusmazlan]

Amazingly, it all seems to make sense in a weird, hard-to-explain kind of way. I've read four of these authors and am several chapters into my first ever Jemisin book, and when that final table came up, it all just seems so... right! Yes, please do more of these videos, Prof!

[@newdivide9882]

Well, I just discovered that I actually find linguistics interesting. Thanks for that. That said, I’m glad you described Sanderson’s writing as “conversational” because I think that’s what I like about it. I like hearing archaic language in movie/shows/video games, but I suspect reading it would be much different. More modern speech, even in a fantasy world, must suit me just fine considering I’m finishing The Way of Kings faster than I did the entire first era of Mistborn lol

[@jameskingsburymeservy7431]

In the context of the recent Wired article on Sanderson, this video is quite relevant. Thanks for the interesting, if brief, foray into an analysis of prose

[@miguelon2595]

I just found your channel and subscribe in the first minute of the video. This is definitely interesting, and I love how you did not insert your own opinions into it. You simply give the audience the information they needed to understand their own opinions on these authors. Pretty cool!

[@DylanPerry-Author]

THANK YOU. This video is fascinating. I'm reading through the Mistborn trilogy right now, and Sanderson's utilitarian prose (among other personal gripes I have with the books) has left me lukewarm on the series. And looking back at books with the same style have always ended up being a 3 star read or lower. Your video helped me see this. Appreciate the work you put into making this. :)

[@Tutorial7a]

Oh, I get that. To this day, despite Stormlight and the rest of the cosmere finally winning me over to appreciating Sanderson’s work, I maintain that Mistborn was…well, the prose was so uncomfortable to read that it brought down the whole experience for me. Utilitarian to the point of barely being functional, y’know?

[@samuelleask1132]

Dope video man, love this kind of content!

[@laura-bianca3130]

There is Tolkien and then there is the rest of the world, you can try to imitate, but you cannot reach him 🥰

[@CheyenneSedai]

This is definitely very interesting. I’d like to see how my own writing compares, as someone who grew up speaking both English and Spanish

[@TheLegendarium]

It would be interesting for sure! Tell me if you dig into it, let me know how it goes.

[@raswartz]

First off, Erikson is an absolute genius. No wasted words. Ability to write in any style or tone. Skillful use of repetition and variety. Fine control over narrative voice, psychic distance, etc. The ability to layer in multiple meanings. It's an embarrassment of riches how good the Malazan Book of the Fallen is. Anyone who is serious about fantasy but never read him should. He's that freaking good.

[@deeptinimmagadda5855]

Agreed 100%!

[@Marshmellow3971]

There are occasions when it makes sense to use rich, vivid language full of metaphor and wordplay and others when a simple, straightforward sentence is all you need. James Joyce is the master of this, he can write more beautiful prose than any author mentioned in this video when he wants to call your attention to something, but there are other times when his sentences are literally just ‘It was an office or something.’

[@babybalrog]

interesting concept. Would love to see a script or chatGPT methodology, that can parse whole books and derive these metrics. I like all the authors you featured today (except Jemisin who've I've not read), so I find them all approachable. I remember a quote by hemingway that when he was doing revisions, if if found a two syllable word that would be replaced by a one syllable word, he would do so. Short words make for fast reading. Also, what percent of Tolkien isn't even from a Earth Language? Of current writers, i think Rothfuss has the best pros i've read. But there is an icerburg race between him and Martin to write their next book

[@G-Blockster]

I really enjoyed this content. My first time landing on the channel, but I look forward to checking out your previous offerings.

[@ohifonlyx33]

I crave luscious, delicate, whimsical, and dreamy prose that elevates the reader into a transcendent world. I pick up many a modern book and while the read is quick and enjoyable and serves its purpose, I feel much more moved by artists who weave magic into their words through word choice and sentence structure. Tolkien's masterful ability to capture the majestic and ethereal, L.M. Montgomery's vivid tapestry of dreamlike whimsy, Charlotte Bronte's elegant sentences and rich Biblical allusions, Jane Austen's thoughtful observations and clever wit... I love the poetry of language within these works.

[@mononoke721]

Exactly! Art isn't about getting to some point as quickly as possible, which to my mind at least, too much of contemporary literature is styled with in mind, even books as long as Sanderson's! If you can't take a moment in a story just to look around and appreciate the place you are conjuring up in a readers mind - really breathe it in, observe it, give it a life of its own - the world, atmosphere and tone you are creating for your story will never leave the kind of impression that stays with a reader and infects their very dreams! Too many of those in the fantasy genre that have followed in Tolkien's footsteps may have created more inventive plots or diverse characters or consistent magic systems, but they have failed to observe his mastery of style. Tolkien may have over-indulged a few too many times at the expense of his stories pace at times (these are points of welcome debate and analysis - Fellowship to my mind suffers from this problem in the first half) but the fact he always made room for his signature meandering is why Middle-Earth remains the most impressive secondary world ever created in fiction! If you're a fantasy writer and you're not studying Tolkien in depth and learning as much as you can from him, you're doing it wrong. It's not just his world-building and thematic depth - Tolkien understood language better than most people living, and its a vital reason why his work has had such a profound impact, even if many people today find it 'too slow' by their schizophrenic standards.

[@vertildr3305]

You might enjoy Guy Gavriel Kay then.

[@briseis_eliopoulos]

You should read The Song of Achilles

[@IzzyZil20]

I like somewhere between Sanderson and Tolkien ideally. Sanderson is good but sometimes I want more from him while someone like Tolkien to me (my opinion) spends way too much time describing something that could be half the length. Personally I’d rather read someone like Martin, Jordan or Herbert personally. I also love how Ruocchio of the Sun Eater series writes. His prose is great without being distracting

[@zenhaelcero8481]

Interesting breakdown. I didn't care for Sanderson's style at all when I tried to read him, but I really hope I enjoy Erikson when I get around to reading Malazan.

[@11proseb4hoes11]

This was such a creative and informative video! Hope you do more of this

[@TheLegendarium]

More to come, for sure. I've got a loose plan for a small series on prose coming up.

[@ClemintineCake]

As someone who's listened to all of these books only, I've found myself liking Sanderson's more. I think it's something to do with the adjectives like I had a hard time conceptualizing wtf was going on in that LOTR passage. Also maybe why I liked the WOT because he would describe shit over and over and over again lol.

[@BanjoSick]

To be fair "The Old Forrest" is hardest chapter to read in the entire book. No idea why he picked it, the are far more "average" Tolkien chapters out there in the Fellowship of the Ring. The second and especially the the third book are written in a quite different mode as well. How Tolkien pulled that off is just great and one of my favorite aspects of LotR.

[@rainstorm1809]

If you're going to call prose "poetic" you need to actually analyze how many poetic devices they're using in how the words are organized in the sentence. Using more germanic words does not make something "poetic" -- using poetic devices does. Alliteration, assonance, anaphora, epistrophe, chiasmus, other sonic elements that make the writing flow. Along that vein, variety of sentence lengths and sentence structures matters a whole lot more than the average sentence length. If every sentence is long or every sentence is short, your writing will not have any musicality at all.

[@YodasPapa]

I don't think you do. The word "poetic", like words within poems, can have different senses depending on context. Here, I just took him to mean that germanic words tend to give a different feel to the text; a feel one may call "poetic" as shorthand for ineffable difference in tone between more and less germanic text.

[@jeffhenckel1481]

So, as a writer is there a tool that would automatically break this down… like pro writing aid? Does it?

[@DoulosEudoxus]

I've watched a lot of videos on how to improve prose, and most of them commend shorter sentences, and finding the right nouns and verbs to minimize the number of adverbs and adjectives (which, when used too much, really clog a sentence and make it difficult to read). But I'd never considered the Germanic vs Latinate factor. I found that insightful, and interesting, thanks!

[@darmokandjalad7786]

Great video, both in production and content.

[@234picapica]

Great vid! It explains my favorite style very well (Tolkien). Can you look at Abercrombie? I always felt he doesn’t get enough acknowledgment for his style. I guess: high percentage of German words, more modifiers than most modern writers, average sentences length.

[@vaibhawkr3904]

Patrick Rothfuss reacted to your reddit post and thats how i found this video

[@Todiros]

Interesting topic. I think that people who like poetry appreciate prose more than those who don't. Personally, I do not enjoy poetry so naturally I like Sanderson's style the most. It felt quite fresh in comparison to some other books I've tried in the past. It also comes down to skill of the writer. If a novice writer adds long descriptions and a bunch of adverbs, it likely won't come out as a good prose. I've quit on a book because the author spend a whole page describing a subway station which I couldn't quite imagine exactly the way it was described, even after multiple reads. In that case, it would have been better to just write a short vague description of a subway station. My mind would have filled the gaps easily. For me, its frustrating to have to read through long descriptions or weird metaphors every paragraph when I'm eager to know what happens next in the story. Just feels like a filler.

[@_WhiteMage]

It's at its worst for me when page space conflicts with how much in-story time is supposedly passing. When a character does a 2-second activity, it's not the time to put a 4-page description between him starting and completing it. It only puts the story on pause. Gotta save those longer explanations for lulls in action so they don't feel jarring.

[@alexhudson4863]

Well, atleast Sanderson finishes his books so you get to actually enjoy more of them.

[@MatrixQ]

The thing I find more important than a particular style of prose is if that is actually the writer's style as in they could write differently, but choose not to, or if it's the only way they are able to write. I fell like you can really see the difference between these 2 kinds of writers, and Sanderson, for example, notorious for being called out for his prose is a good writer, he knows what he's doing, his choice of prose is deliberate, so it reads really well.

[@chico6988]

I kept hearing other people talk about prose and if I'm being honest, I had no idea what they were talking about. Thank you for breaking this down in a way that is easy to grasp. Out of the examples you gave, I think I lean towards Sanderson's style. Only one of these I have read has been Tolkien, but I have been debating Sanderson or Erikson. You may have tipped the scale for me, for now anyways. I'll probably get around to both in time, and possibly even Rothfuss...

[@TheSlurpy11]

I had no idea about Germanic and Latinate words, so this was fascinating! Thank you 😊

[@kito-]

This was really enlightening. I just finished Soule's Light of the Jedi and while I the plot and world-building were good, I found the prose wanting. le Guin's prose is utterly brilliant - check her out!

[@RYXP_FAN]

Prof Craig provided the exact two examples I think of here with prose. I never noticed prose as true art until I went through the Name of the Wind, and then shortly after that I went back to my favorite fantasy author: Brandon Sanderson and was struck by the difference. I love both the author's work but the difference is pretty clear.

[@7Seraphem7]

I care far, far more about what happens in a story then the prose of it. Even the 'simpler' prose like Sanderson can still have the lines that are just, gloriously beautiful, but the prose should mostly be in service to the story. It all depends on everything else and how well the way it's told fits what is being told. It's something I barely notice unless you are talking Sir Pterry levels of making the prose part of the story itself in how masterfully he uses the medium to enhance the narrative on multiple levels.

[@iiiiitsmagreta1240]

GNU Sir Pterry ❤

[@DenzilPeters]

Loved the breakdown, learned a lot. And you earned my subscription just with this one video.

[@beabee256]

This was very interesting. This is possibly why I can’t read Tolkien for hours on end (too many adjectives and adverbs). The Germanic to Latinate comparaison was also very interesting. I am a native French speaker so I wonder what kind of comparaison could be used for French novels… Possibly the same, actually, but with a different conclusion. Also, the quality of your lighting on this video is impressive. I just subscribed to your channel. I’m curious to see if you always have such good lighting (and subject matters, of course 😊)!

[@uptown3636]

Brilliant video! First time viewer here, and the inclusion of the Germanic/Latinate ratio got me to subscribe. Simply superb.

[@lostwanderingprince]

I have a different kind of question regarding this, that does it involve hardcore math to compose quality prose? I saw a video of vsauce about constraint writing and he showed a book that has pi in it's process of its creation. I also heard that few authors has some unique hardcore ways in their prose like if I'm not mistaken in Ulysses that's like has music technicalities in it. So my question is is this always a required in writing? Did Mary Shelley used hardcore math in writing Frankenstein? I'm into classics and scifi and I'm also an aspiring writer and I still have a lot to learn.

[@theatheistbear3117]

If you need to add musical technicalities to be a “great” author than you’re just being try hard. Prose is human language. Anything else is superfluous, and not literary.

[@djoseph104]

Thank you for a Great video. I found it really cool how you have examined these authors. I'm not an English major, but on your list of common Germanic words, I'm confused. I took four years of Latin and I'm pretty certain that words like 'into' are from Latin. Also, though English borrows more from German, it was the language of tradesmen (translate: Not Nobility). It was a true hybrid of all of the languages of the Northen European trading routes. This includes German, French/Spanish/Portu/Italian (aka Latin), Scandanavian, Greek, and Gaelic. Tolkien, in particular, borrowed tons from Gaelic and Scandanvia in his prose. I think that too makes his writing more colorful. Thank you for an eye-opening comparison. I am looking forward to watching the next one.