Modern Language?

[eriwancoselyn]

4 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

It is. It is mentioned that Alethi peasants stress words differently. Among them Kaladin's name.

that's not what I mean. no one mentioned a shift in the way that they spoke. the death of 'alethi posh', all of that's missing

Edited December 16, 2024 by eriwancoselyn

[Returned he/him]

It's unavoidable to some degree, since it's a novel written for speakers of modern American English it has to be written in "our" language, however you want to define that. That changes over time in word choice, connotation, and some grammatical constructions, even over a period as brief as the one between the publication of Way of Kings and Wind and Truth. For a more extreme example compare a science fiction book from the 1950s to one written more recently. The difference in prose style can be pretty intense.

It's possible to be more consistent with that than Sanderson has been, and I personally would prefer it if he were less responsive to... I guess I'll say novel, youthful, constructions (I'm really not sure what the right word is, though I'm sure there is one). It feels, to me, like use of more modern, faddish forms is more fleeting and less effortful, which I dislike in general. It's not just the modern-ness that irritates me: I would be similarly bothered if Rosharans described things as "tight" or "dope", which were (unfortunately) in vogue when I was younger. Language will leave these behind, too, so a lot of them will age poorly and I'll find them jarring before and after that. In fairness I feel similarly about some of the in-world, made-up slang. I always hated the word "deevy".

It makes the novels feel more casually written than I want in such an epic series which asks as much of its readers as Stormlight has, and I think it's fair to say that Way of Kings and Words of Radiance were less colloquial to the United States in the mid-to-late 2010s or so. But I don't think that Sanderson is aiming for a fake-archaeology-found-literature style (like Book of the New Sun) nor a deliberate archaic style (like Lord of the Rings). Rather he's just writing the way that he writes and that happens to be pointed at modern audiences with a more conversational style.

What bothers me much more, and makes me more prickly about the relatively isolated anatopisms, is that some of the prose seems more cookie-cutter interchangeable and therefore less carefully crafted and thoughtful. For example, Gaz's dialogue sounds very different in Wind and Truth than in Way of Kings, and he sounds a lot more like Red and Vatha than the old Gaz, and they all sound a lot more like Shallan than I would expect a given person to. Like the use of more casual language forms, this feels more accessible and convenient rather than deliberate and attentive.

Ultimately these are just irritations to me, though. The books are still great and worthwhile, just a bit rougher and less engrossing for me in places.

Edited December 16, 2024 by Returned

[Captain Coffee]

4 hours ago, eriwancoselyn said:

Abolutely 100% agree that the jokes have always been there. I'd say that some of those quotes are a cut above the example from book 5. The madness/ scholarship one is at least decently witty. To me, this is something that's always been a bit of a thing in BS books. I actually enjoy the ones in Way of Kings because they usually show up in more personal or lighthearted moments to contrast the normal tone of seriousness. I'm not saying that jokes aren't allowed. But don't you think the more glib dialogue has been getting more and more prevalent in later books?

Could you go through wind and truth and find me a quote that matches the quality of my errogance quote? And, if you did, what would you do when I put up another fantastic monologue or high quality piece of dialogue? I guarantee you'll run out of examples before I do, even though WaT is 300 pages longer than WoK.

But I understand what you're trying to say. I'm happy to debate it if you think I'm wrong.

I'm not interested in stacking examples and counting glibness vs. formalness, but I think Shallan being more glib and less formal as the books go on makes so much sense. In the first book she is trying to impress Jasnah, and act the way she thinks a proper lighteyes should. By Wind and Truth, Shallan is relatively comfortable in her own skin and speaking the way she wants. And, Shallan especially seems like someone who would introduce new, more quppy, and less formal ways of speaking as she grows.

Edited December 16, 2024 by Captain Coffee

[Kairos]

Away from my copy right now, but the one that really grabbed me was when someone said it would “just be a sec”. 
 

Second would have been fine, but “sec” just threw me out of the reading fugue I was in. 

[eriwancoselyn]

3 hours ago, Captain Coffee said:

I'm not interested in stacking examples and counting glibness vs. formalness, but I think Shallan being more glib and less formal as the books go on makes so much sense. In the first book she is trying to impress Jasnah, and act the way she thinks a proper lighteyes should. By Wind and Truth, Shallan is relatively comfortable in her own skin and speaking the way she wants. And, Shallan especially seems like someone who would introduce new, more quppy, and less formal ways of speaking as she grows.

I'd say being less formal can make some sense. I'd say being less smart and more basic is completely unacceptable for her as a character. I understand you not having the time to stack examples but this is the crux of the issue that people are having. Smart, somewhat formal dialogue is giving way to very flat and uninteresting lines. Can you at least acknowledge that I'm right about declining dialogue quality? 

Also, let's not get too locked into Shallan as a character. I used her as an example but this is book wide issue, including even the descriptions and non character lines.

[Cocoa he/him]

As other's have already mentioned, one of the stand-out examples in this book was a sudden shift to things like "dating" and "ex" as opposed to the characters talking about "courting" in earlier books. We're seeing a bit of a shift away from Rosharan-specific profanity. "I'm his therapist" "what's that" "I really don't know." Crass humor (never absent from the Cosmere, but more noticeable in W&W and the later Stormlight books) showing up more frequently.

Any one of these, taken by itself, is hardly even worth noticing. Collectively, it makes it feel like parts of the fantasy are being watered down. Not all of them by any means, and it's more like they're weakening than disappearing outright, but the difference is felt all the same. The more the characters and setting lose things that set them apart from Earth (and more specifically, 21st century America), the less it feels like you're actually immersing yourself in the story of another world. None of that's enough to keep me from enjoying the books, but I can honestly say I think I'd enjoy the books more if the characters had hung onto more of the things that mark them as living in another time and place.

Honestly, I'm curious how much of it has to do with WaT being written after Tress of the Emerald Sea and Yumi and the Nightmare Painter. Hoid has a very particular style of speaking, narration, and humor, and while I greatly enjoyed those books, it almost feels like Brandon got halfway 'stuck' writing in that style, and it started to bleed into the tone and dialogue of WaT. To a lesser extent, I wonder how much if any of it has to do with Wax & Wayne being written right in the middle of Stormlight. Again, big fan of the W&W books, but they're tonally very different from the first two or three Stormlight books, and then not quite so different from RoW and WaT as that tone starts to shift.

[Forged Herald]

4 hours ago, Cocoa said:

As other's have already mentioned, one of the stand-out examples in this book was a sudden shift to things like "dating" and "ex" as opposed to the characters talking about "courting" in earlier books. We're seeing a bit of a shift away from Rosharan-specific profanity. "I'm his therapist" "what's that" "I really don't know." Crass humor (never absent from the Cosmere, but more noticeable in W&W and the later Stormlight books) showing up more frequently.

Any one of these, taken by itself, is hardly even worth noticing. Collectively, it makes it feel like parts of the fantasy are being watered down. Not all of them by any means, and it's more like they're weakening than disappearing outright, but the difference is felt all the same. The more the characters and setting lose things that set them apart from Earth (and more specifically, 21st century America), the less it feels like you're actually immersing yourself in the story of another world. None of that's enough to keep me from enjoying the books, but I can honestly say I think I'd enjoy the books more if the characters had hung onto more of the things that mark them as living in another time and place.

Honestly, I'm curious how much of it has to do with WaT being written after Tress of the Emerald Sea and Yumi and the Nightmare Painter. Hoid has a very particular style of speaking, narration, and humor, and while I greatly enjoyed those books, it almost feels like Brandon got halfway 'stuck' writing in that style, and it started to bleed into the tone and dialogue of WaT. To a lesser extent, I wonder how much if any of it has to do with Wax & Wayne being written right in the middle of Stormlight. Again, big fan of the W&W books, but they're tonally very different from the first two or three Stormlight books, and then not quite so different from RoW and WaT as that tone starts to shift.

I absolutely agree. But I don't mind Tress and Yumi (I actually enjoyed both very much) and I had no problem with their style (I thinj¡k it suited Yumi a lot). But the inconsistency drives me mad sometimes and completely breaks my immersion. As many have said, I believ it's the editors job and I don't know if it is because of the ack of time or becasue of "fear" of contraticitng Brandon, but the editors are not doing a good job in some aspects. 

The story is still really enjoyable and it isn't half as bad as some of the worst examples of good story, bad writing (like Dune), but I feel it could be way better with a little more editing and revision.

[Texside he/him/his]

On 12/16/2024 at 4:28 PM, eriwancoselyn said:

I'd say being less formal can make some sense. I'd say being less smart and more basic is completely unacceptable for her as a character. I understand you not having the time to stack examples but this is the crux of the issue that people are having. Smart, somewhat formal dialogue is giving way to very flat and uninteresting lines. Can you at least acknowledge that I'm right about declining dialogue quality? 

Also, let's not get too locked into Shallan as a character. I used her as an example but this is book wide issue, including even the descriptions and non character lines.

Drawing from my own experiences... I disagree with you -- I've found experienced academics tend to use slang and "lazy" language in everything but formal lectures, talking to undergraduates they don't know (this depends on the person some), and published research. Newer ones sometimes do (for a variety of reasons). So Shallan talking casual-like felt like it showed her growth. 

The language changing from book 1 to book 5 didn't bother me, admittedly. I think it worked and don't think one is better writing than another, since it's ultimately a subjective preference. I'd generally prefer modern language over trying to feel "medieval," but that's my preference. I respect if it bothered you, though, that seems like it could pull you out of it. 

[eriwancoselyn]

46 minutes ago, Texside said:

Drawing from my own experiences... I disagree with you -- I've found experienced academics tend to use slang and "lazy" language in everything but formal lectures, talking to undergraduates they don't know (this depends on the person some), and published research. Newer ones sometimes do (for a variety of reasons). So Shallan talking casual-like felt like it showed her growth. 

My brother in Christ, that's part of the comment you're responding to. I agreed that some loss of formality can be accepted, but the loss of intelligence and depth of dialogue cannot. 

46 minutes ago, Texside said:

The language changing from book 1 to book 5 didn't bother me, admittedly. I think it worked and don't think one is better writing than another, since it's ultimately a subjective preference. I'd generally prefer modern language over trying to feel "medieval," but that's my preference. I respect if it bothered you, though, that seems like it could pull you out of it. 

My advice would be to do some direct comparisons between book 1 and 5 dialogue/prose. Once you realize how different the quality levels are, it'll start to bother you too. I'm glad that we can at least agree that a change is happening. Can I ask if you'd agree that this is to some degree unnatural? As in, do you think any of the characters (even as they undergo arcs) would shift up their register this much? And does a sudden shift into modern day dialogue make sense for this shift?

edit: sorry, I just reread your comment and need to add something. prose is absolutely not subjective. enjoyment can be subjective, but there are objective measures for quality.

Edited December 18, 2024 by eriwancoselyn

[Texside he/him/his]

14 minutes ago, eriwancoselyn said:

My brother in Christ, that's part of the comment you're responding to. I agreed that some loss of formality can be accepted, but the loss of intelligence and depth of dialogue cannot. 

I'm afraid I didn't find a loss of intelligence or depth of dialogue there. I read it as Shallan feeling more comfortable and using more natural language as she grew into herself. 

16 minutes ago, eriwancoselyn said:

My advice would be to do some direct comparisons between book 1 and 5 dialogue/prose. Once you realize how different the quality levels are, it'll start to bother you too. I'm glad that we can at least agree that a change is happening. Can I ask if you'd agree that this is to some degree unnatural? As in, do you think any of the characters (even as they undergo arcs) would shift up their register this much? And does a sudden shift into modern day dialogue make sense for this shift?

I did notice the shift, yes -- it just didn't bother me. Using "ex," modern swears that Lift picked up from Zahel, therapy, and the like did not strike me as particularly out of character. I chalked it up to (in-universe) shifts in language due to more world hoppers and generally following a trend of Brandon liking humor like that (see Adolin and Shallan's conversation about poop in Plate in WoR). I imagine how Brandon talks has changed too which has an impact. But, no, I didn't find it a sudden shift or unnatural. 

 

21 minutes ago, eriwancoselyn said:

edit: sorry, I just reread your comment and need to add something. prose is absolutely not subjective. enjoyment can be subjective, but there are objective measures for quality.

Agreed, but I don't think this one is a sign of bad objective quality. 

[eriwancoselyn]

18 minutes ago, Texside said:

I'm afraid I didn't find a loss of intelligence or depth of dialogue there. I read it as Shallan feeling more comfortable and using more natural language as she grew into herself. 

what would you say is the most intelligently written Shallan conversation in book 5? more then just a single line, a set of lines. I worry that we're getting our wires crossed here. when I say depth of dialogue issues, I mean in the later books, not when she lets her guard down in the first few books. also, I'm not sure if natural language = modern day.

22 minutes ago, Texside said:

I did notice the shift, yes -- it just didn't bother me. Using "ex," modern swears that Lift picked up from Zahel, therapy, and the like did not strike me as particularly out of character. I chalked it up to (in-universe) shifts in language due to more world hoppers and generally following a trend of Brandon liking humor like that (see Adolin and Shallan's conversation about poop in Plate in WoR). I imagine how Brandon talks has changed too which has an impact. But, no, I didn't find it a sudden shift or unnatural. 

ok, I'd say that the shift is completely unnatural. more then justified things like lift picking up foreign words. I'm not talking about small instances, but a general trend towards talking more like modern people. I'd say it's borderline impossible for a society of people in the linguistic period of book 1 to , over the course of only a few years, transition into modern speak. I agree that Brandon's mode of talking probably to blame. The man's just getting older and the way he writes is shifting. That, in turn, changes the way that people in world speak. but it's absolutely not natural.

29 minutes ago, Texside said:

Agreed, but I don't think this one is a sign of bad objective quality. 

what do you mean by 'this one', can you clarify?

[Texside he/him/his]

11 minutes ago, eriwancoselyn said:

what would you say is the most intelligently written Shallan conversation in book 5? more then just a single line, a set of lines. I worry that we're getting our wires crossed here. when I say depth of dialogue issues, I mean in the later books, not when she lets her guard down in the first few books. also, I'm not sure if natural language = modern day.

I'd need to think a bit. Off the top of my head, I thought the example you gave showed her being intelligent. But, I can't think of an especially intelligent one at the moment (largely since I'm replying to this between work tasks, so can't quite check my book). 

13 minutes ago, eriwancoselyn said:

ok, I'd say that the shift is completely unnatural. more then justified things like lift picking up foreign words. I'm not talking about small instances, but a general trend towards talking more like modern people. I'd say it's borderline impossible for a society of people in the linguistic period of book 1 to , over the course of only a few years, transition into modern speak. I agree that Brandon's mode of talking probably to blame. The man's just getting older and the way he writes is shifting. That, in turn, changes the way that people in world speak. but it's absolutely not natural.

I think it's natural, myself. I'm not a linguist -- I'm an archivist and historian by trade -- but I felt like the characters who are younger use language I'd expect from someone younger. Dalinar, Navani, Fen, and such didn't use more modern language and idioms. I think Brandon changed those idioms as he learned new ones but it didn't feel it of character. 

 

18 minutes ago, eriwancoselyn said:

what do you mean by 'this one', can you clarify?

Pardon! The dangers of phone typing. I meant that I didn't find the use of modern language in Book 5 to be a sign of bad quality writing. 

[eriwancoselyn]

56 minutes ago, Texside said:

I'd need to think a bit. Off the top of my head, I thought the example you gave showed her being intelligent. But, I can't think of an especially intelligent one at the moment (largely since I'm replying to this between work tasks, so can't quite check my book). 

it's just an easy way to prove a dip in quality. you take the best Shallan conversation in book 5 and I'll take the best one in book 1 and we see who's got the better one.

56 minutes ago, Texside said:

think it's natural, myself. I'm not a linguist -- I'm an archivist and historian by trade -- but I felt like the characters who are younger use language I'd expect from someone younger. Dalinar, Navani, Fen, and such didn't use more modern language and idioms. I think Brandon changed those idioms as he learned new ones but it didn't feel it of character. 

fen uses modern language. she couches some of her phrases in 'no offence' like a modern person would. combined with Shallan, we see the shift in dialogue doesn't have anything to do with age groups.

Also, if that were true, then it would be visible in book one, which it isn't

Edited December 18, 2024 by eriwancoselyn

[Texside he/him/his]

19 minutes ago, eriwancoselyn said:

it's just an easy way to prove a dip in quality. you take the best Shallan conversation in book 5 and I'll take the best one in book 1 and we see who's got the better one.

I'm not sure this would be useful. We might have very different ideas of what would make a conversation good. I don't mean that as an insult, but what I value and consider great is likely different than what you do. And vice versa! And that's okay. 

I'd probably say her conversation with Chana was my favorite though. I'd need to reread it to be sure. 

20 minutes ago, eriwancoselyn said:

fen uses modern language. she couches some of her phrases in 'no offence' like a modern person would. combined with Shallan, we see the shift in dialogue doesn't have anything to do with age groups.

No offense dates back to 1829 based on quick research. It looks like it has roots in Shakespeare though I'd need to do some more research than I can right now to verify that. 

[eriwancoselyn]

6 hours ago, Texside said:

I'm not sure this would be useful. We might have very different ideas of what would make a conversation good. I don't mean that as an insult, but what I value and consider great is likely different than what you do. And vice versa! And that's okay. 

hold on, didn't you just agree with me that there were objective metrics for quality

 

6 hours ago, Texside said:

I'd probably say her conversation with Chana was my favorite though. I'd need to reread it to be sure. 

great, let's use this. you name any metric for quality that you want and I'll outdo it.

 

6 hours ago, Texside said:

No offense dates back to 1829 based on quick research. It looks like it has roots in Shakespeare though I'd need to do some more research than I can right now to verify that. 

do you genuinely believe that Brandon knew or cared about that when he was writing, or do you think that he just wrote what was normal to him. the phrase being used in the past doesn't mean that it isn't a popular phrase in the present.

also, you missed a point on my last comment. if the change is based in age and nothing else, the youth of book one would talk differently from their parents, which they do not. also, no one ever mentions talking differently from their parents.

Edited December 18, 2024 by eriwancoselyn

[BridgeBoi]

Yes, imagine a character from the Lord of the Rings using modern language. Brandon using modern language draws me personally out of the story to a similar degree.

[Texside he/him/his]

1 hour ago, eriwancoselyn said:

hold on, didn't you just agree with me that there were objective metrics for quality

Yes, but I disagree that what you're describing is an objective marker of quality -- I don't feel it is. I would rate the consistency of the plot movements, evoking emotion through events and actions, the ability to surprise and impress to be what makes it good. I don't think use of modern language would make or break a scene; I don't think trying to pick examples is going to matter because we'll be judging it differently.

1 hour ago, eriwancoselyn said:

do you genuinely believe that Brandon knew or cared about that when he was writing, or do you think that he just wrote what was normal to him. the phrase being used in the past doesn't mean that it isn't a popular phrase in the present.

Yes, I believe the professional author knew or cared about what he was writing and did a deliberate choice to use more modern language. I certainly think about what language I use in a professional capacity.

1 hour ago, eriwancoselyn said:

also, you missed a point on my last comment. if the change is based in age and nothing else, the youth of book one would talk differently from their parents, which they do not. also, no one ever mentions talking differently from their parents.

Ah, no, I was disagreeing with you -- I think Dalinar, Navani, and Fen talk differently than Shallan, Adolin, and Kaladin. I realize you may disagree, but this is what I felt was the case after my analysis. It's fine if you disagree, but that would be a matter of analysis and interpretation, which is ultimately a matter of opinion. It's fine if we disagree -- but we do disagree, and it's not something you can "prove" to me.

52 minutes ago, BridgeBoi said:

Yes, imagine a character from the Lord of the Rings using modern language. Brandon using modern language draws me personally out of the story to a similar degree.

Yeah, but I expect modern language out of Brandon's writing. Heck, it's something I like about Brandon's writing -- it's direct, it's modern, and it's often (to me, which, again, is subjective) pretty funny and consistently moving when it should be. It's not Lord of the Rings, and I don't want it to be. I'll read Tolkien for that; the man was a linguist and a master of that craft. I don't expect that from Brandon, because it's not what he's going for, nor what I go to him for.

[jamskinner]

On 12/14/2024 at 5:27 PM, Silverblade5 said:

It's mostly people in recovery from Concord and Dragon Age being on hair-triggers for the things they thought were wrong there. I personally thought it was fine.

Your examples are  2 games that were gigantic failures?

[eriwancoselyn]

28 minutes ago, Texside said:

Yes, but I disagree that what you're describing is an objective marker of quality -- I don't feel it is. I would rate the consistency of the plot movements, evoking emotion through events and actions, the ability to surprise and impress to be what makes it good. I don't think use of modern language would make or break a scene; I don't think trying to pick examples is going to matter because we'll be judging it differently.

you agreed that there were objective markers for quality of prose. reread the comment. I said prose can be objectively judged for quality, you agreed. I don't believe I've cited an objective marker for prose quality, I was going to try to come to consensus with you on that. wtf is a 'consistent plot movement'. emotion is mainly evoked through character reactions but ik what you mean. I'm starting to feel like I'm repeating myself, but modern language breaks a scene because it's not consistent with the world we were shown in the early books. the whole point of coming to consensus was to try and find common ground to judge by.

28 minutes ago, Texside said:

Yes, I believe the professional author knew or cared about what he was writing and did a deliberate choice to use more modern language. I certainly think about what language I use in a professional capacity.

again, I feel like I'm repeating myself. characters who speak in a medievalist way can't naturally transition to modern over the course of only a few years. it's just not possible. if your telling me Brandon deliberately did that, then I'd simply have to say it was a mistake.

28 minutes ago, Texside said:

Ah, no, I was disagreeing with you -- I think Dalinar, Navani, and Fen talk differently than Shallan, Adolin, and Kaladin. I realize you may disagree, but this is what I felt was the case after my analysis. It's fine if you disagree, but that would be a matter of analysis and interpretation, which is ultimately a matter of opinion. It's fine if we disagree -- but we do disagree, and it's not something you can "prove" to me.

that's not what I'm saying. you're trying to cite something that's never mentioned or even vaguely alluded to in the books. it's 'your analysis' in that you've mostly concluded that without the books' input. if you didn't come here willing to have your mind changed, then why are you bothering to respond to me. pls, if you're just wasting my time, stop.

28 minutes ago, Texside said:

Yeah, but I expect modern language out of Brandon's writing. Heck, it's something I like about Brandon's writing -- it's direct, it's modern, and it's often (to me, which, again, is subjective) pretty funny and consistently moving when it should be. It's not Lord of the Rings, and I don't want it to be. I'll read Tolkien for that; the man was a linguist and a master of that craft. I don't expect that from Brandon, because it's not what he's going for, nor what I go to him for.

none of this adds value to this conversation. you've already said that you like modern language in previous comments, I heard you and I understand what you mean. pls don't bring it up again.

Edited December 19, 2024 by eriwancoselyn

[Texside he/him/his]

Just now, eriwancoselyn said:

you agreed that there were objective markers for quality of prose. reread the comment. I said prose can be objectively judged for quality, you agreed. I don't believe I've cited an objective marker for prose quality, I was going to try to come to consensus with you on that. wtf is a 'consistent plot movement'. emotion is mainly evoked through character reactions but ik what you mean. I'm starting to feel like I'm repeating myself, but modern language breaks a scene because it's not consistent with the world we were shown in the early books. the whole point of coming to consensus was to try and find common ground to judge by.

Hey, whoa, before we keep going: if you think I'm attacking you or trying to argue with you for sport, I apologize. I'm getting a sense you're angry. I may not be swayed by your arguments, but I respect we like the same thing and we're both having fun with Brandon's works. I realize text is imperfect for communicating tone, though, and I may be picking up something that's not there.

I'm going to avoid block quoting your reply piece-by-piece since I agree, I think it was leading to going around in circles. I'll try to offer a more thorough idea of what I saw.

I don't agree with your principle argument that "modern language breaks a scene because it's not consistent with the world we were shown in the early books." I don't think it was inconsistent with that world; I was never taken out of the story, and found the extreme cases made sense (e.g., Kaladin calling himself a therapist after talking to Wit, Lift using Zahel's swearing). Now, I admit, had I not had those examples... I'd have been like "why on earth did Lift drop the s-bomb?" and probably had something taken away from the story as a result.

Since I think I didn't explain it well, let me try again to say what I think objective methods of evaluating a story are:

• That the plot is internally consistent. That one event logically leads to another; that what happened has a clear reason why it did.
• That the plot and setting are clearly explained and easily understood. I think a good story is one I don't need to re-read a dozen times to get what happened, that I can trace the events that occurred, and that what happens feels consistent with the details of the setting.
• That characterization and character development is logical and consistent. I want to see that what a character did in Chapter 1 leads to what the character did in Chapter 50, and I can understand how they got there.
• That the story is engaging and evokes an emotional response. By this, I mean that the events of the narrative are ones I find interesting. I admit this is more subjective, but I do think it's important, so I'm including it.

In Wind and Truth, I didn't find the use of modern language to impact those. It didn't bother me -- it didn't render the plot less consistent, make me misunderstand the plot and setting, did not hurt characterization or character development, and didn't result in my disengaging from the story. I understand there was a shift from earlier books, and I apologize if I said there wasn't; I just don't think that shift is significant to my personal enjoyment of the book or my understanding of its quality.

I respect your opinion on the matter! Seriously, I appreciate your perspective -- if I understand correctly, you feel that the use of more modern language compared to the earlier books resulted in you feeling Wind and Truth was inconsistent and lower quality -- and it's good food for thought for me! I didn't have my opinion changed, but I don't feel our time was wasted having this talk. I think it's worth considering, because what doesn't bother me will bother some (and vice versa!).

[eriwancoselyn]

3 minutes ago, Texside said:

Hey, whoa, before we keep going: if you think I'm attacking you or trying to argue with you for sport, I apologize. I'm getting a sense you're angry. I may not be swayed by your arguments, but I respect we like the same thing and we're both having fun with Brandon's works. I realize text is imperfect for communicating tone, though, and I may be picking up something that's not there.

I'm going to avoid block quoting your reply piece-by-piece since I agree, I think it was leading to going around in circles. I'll try to offer a more thorough idea of what I saw.

I don't agree with your principle argument that "modern language breaks a scene because it's not consistent with the world we were shown in the early books." I don't think it was inconsistent with that world; I was never taken out of the story, and found the extreme cases made sense (e.g., Kaladin calling himself a therapist after talking to Wit, Lift using Zahel's swearing). Now, I admit, had I not had those examples... I'd have been like "why on earth did Lift drop the s-bomb?" and probably had something taken away from the story as a result.

Since I think I didn't explain it well, let me try again to say what I think objective methods of evaluating a story are:

• That the plot is internally consistent. That one event logically leads to another; that what happened has a clear reason why it did.
• That the plot and setting are clearly explained and easily understood. I think a good story is one I don't need to re-read a dozen times to get what happened, that I can trace the events that occurred, and that what happens feels consistent with the details of the setting.
• That characterization and character development is logical and consistent. I want to see that what a character did in Chapter 1 leads to what the character did in Chapter 50, and I can understand how they got there.
• That the story is engaging and evokes an emotional response. By this, I mean that the events of the narrative are ones I find interesting. I admit this is more subjective, but I do think it's important, so I'm including it.

In Wind and Truth, I didn't find the use of modern language to impact those. It didn't bother me -- it didn't render the plot less consistent, make me misunderstand the plot and setting, did not hurt characterization or character development, and didn't result in my disengaging from the story. I understand there was a shift from earlier books, and I apologize if I said there wasn't; I just don't think that shift is significant to my personal enjoyment of the book or my understanding of its quality.

I respect your opinion on the matter! Seriously, I appreciate your perspective -- if I understand correctly, you feel that the use of more modern language compared to the earlier books resulted in you feeling Wind and Truth was inconsistent and lower quality -- and it's good food for thought for me! I didn't have my opinion changed, but I don't feel our time was wasted having this talk. I think it's worth considering, because what doesn't bother me will bother some (and vice versa!).

I'm calm, it's fine. 

a lot of this was stated in your original argument or the following responses. I understand the desire to not go in circles but you've responded to nothing that I've said in my last comment. a lot of what you've brought up here are things that I've already responded to, either you didn't listen or you didn't care because you've just repeated yourself verbatim.

I'm not asking for your methods to evaluate a story. I'm looking for your methods to evaluate prose.

pls just respond to my arguments.

 

[Texside he/him/his]

2 minutes ago, eriwancoselyn said:

I'm not asking for your methods to evaluate a story. I'm looking for your methods to evaluate prose.

pls just respond to my arguments.

Sorry, I was attempting to respond to your arguments. I think I didn't understand them clearly.

I evaluate prose by judging whether it accomplished the four points I raised in my previous post; I'm looking at whether prose clearly and concisely communicates the plot and characterization, and with a turn of phrase that I find entertaining (with an acknowledgment that "entertaining" is absolutely subjective).

 

[QuantumAce]

16 hours ago, Texside said:

Since I think I didn't explain it well, let me try again to say what I think objective methods of evaluating a story are:

• That the plot is internally consistent. That one event logically leads to another; that what happened has a clear reason why it did.
• That the plot and setting are clearly explained and easily understood. I think a good story is one I don't need to re-read a dozen times to get what happened, that I can trace the events that occurred, and that what happens feels consistent with the details of the setting.
• That characterization and character development is logical and consistent. I want to see that what a character did in Chapter 1 leads to what the character did in Chapter 50, and I can understand how they got there.
• That the story is engaging and evokes an emotional response. By this, I mean that the events of the narrative are ones I find interesting. I admit this is more subjective, but I do think it's important, so I'm including it.

Those are great points for evaluating a story, but tone and writing style are also significant components of a book. 

Periodically slipping into a more of a modern YA style didn't necessarily detracted my my enjoyment of the book, but it is something that definitely stood out. 

[Texside he/him/his]

1 hour ago, QuantumAce said:

Those are great points for evaluating a story, but tone and writing style are also significant components of a book. 

Periodically slipping into a more of a modern YA style didn't necessarily detracted my my enjoyment of the book, but it is something that definitely stood out. 

Yeah, definitely -- me and @eriwancoselyn swapped to DM's and I realized I was looking at the story and not the prose. I'm inclined to agree that there was a change there. 

[VirtuousTraveller]

On 12/15/2024 at 5:32 AM, eriwancoselyn said:

Shallan is a good example of this change. 

Her dialogue in this book is much more glib and modern than book one Shallan. It's lost its mediaeval flavor.

“Buddy, we need to work on your presentation.”

This is not how Shallan speaks.  I felt that way often in this book too.