Mistborn vs Red Rising

[Schizoposting]

(Note: spoilers for both The Final Empire and Red Rising)

So, seeing how popular it is, I recently decided to read Red Rising, and I can't help but feel that it's an inferior version of Mistborn—the basic story is exactly the same: a low-ranking member of a brutal dystopian society gets recruited by the resistance, because they're special in some way, and gets sent to infiltrate the upper class to bring down the regime—along the way they become hardened killers, get an upper class love interest, and learn the lesson that not all golds/nobles are evil, etc. 

But (ignoring the question of originality) it's the implementation where the difference lies. 

To start, the general style and atmosphere of Mistborn is superior to Red Rising's—while Mistborn straddles the line between young adult and adult fiction (at least in The Final Empire) Red Rising is straight up young adult. Furthermore, the setting of Mistborn does an excellent job of creating a serious, bleak atmosphere, while Red Rising's setting is an over the top and ridiculous space opera. Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but for the story that they are trying to tell, I think that the former is far better suited than the latter. Revolution is a serious topic, that deserves to be taken seriously. An over-the-top space opera may have worked in something like The Fifth Element, but in this case, I think that it's incongruous with the subject matter.

But ultimately, this is a minor issue, that by no means ruined the book for me—in fact, Steelheart had these same characteristics, and I still enjoyed it. The following is where my real issues lie.

The first is characterization. While Vin is by no means the world's most complex character, Darrow is positively flat in comparison. I understand that having a "relatable" (i.e. generic) character is part of the appeal, but I think that this comes at the expense at the story as a whole.

Regardless, this is secondary to the main problem that I have with Darrow's character—he's, at times, a borderline Gary Stu—he's unreasonably strong, intelligent, charismatic, etc. Conversely, in Vin's case, while she's certainly special, a chosen one, and preternaturally good at combat, this is compensated by having her have very real human weakness, like a lack of trust, or by having her often fail. For Darrow, while some of this can be explained by Carving, it beggars belief that no one else does it; if the Son's of Ares can afford to do it twice in a year, then surely the ultrawealthy can also do it. And even if it's illegal (for whatever reason) we should expect people to still try.

From a story telling perspective, even it can all be hand waved away, it still removes tension from the story, since whenever Darrow gets into trouble, we know that we have nothing to fear, because he'll come up with some genius plan (which he will not tell us), that will magically save the day. All of this is compounded by the fact the other golds are supposed to be the best of the best, and yet they keep acting like morons, just so that Darrow can win. I honestly think that this book would have been stronger if it had Darrow lose in the end, instead of having him outsmart everybody with his genius.

But even this could be excused. By far the biggest problem with Red Rising is the plot. Specifically, the Hunger Games sequence, which was awful. I heard, before reading the book, that it was very fast paced, and maybe that is the case, but then the latter half was both fast paced and tedious. There were many problems with this part, but the fundamental one was that it constantly repeated the same basic plot beats without ever doing much to advance the story, even if nominally a lot of things are happening. I admit, the first few times it was fun seeing Darrow out smart everyone, but it quickly lost it charm. It does not matter whatsoever for the broader story whether or not Darrow captures x castle. At a minimum, I think that this sequence should have been cut in half.

Ultimately, at least for me, there is a certain undefinable quality that makes a given story engaging—authors like Sanderson, Tad Williams, or Robin Hobb, can write about the most boring things imaginable, and I'll still be hooked, while others cannot, even if they're writing about nominally interesting topics. I think that this is either due to caring about the characters, dramatic tension, or both. For me at least, Red Rising lacked both of these qualities. (For instance, Pax dying was apparently supposed to be a big deal, but I personally couldn't care less.)

So, to conclude, while both Mistborn and Red Rising share the same basic story, they differ substantially in implementation, and in my opinion, the latter is by far the inferior version. If I had to give a numerical ranking to each respective story, I'd give Mistborn something like 8/10, and Red Rising a 6/10. In plain English, I think that Mistborn is a good book with some issues (e.g. prose), while Red Rising is a decent book that I personally disliked, but I understand why some people may differ. 

Supposedly, the sequel resolves some of these issues, and since these books are pretty short and easy to read, I might try it. But given that I only read this because it's popular, I feel a certain obligation to give something like Forth Wing a shot as well, out of a sense of egalitarianism if nothing else.

[Treamayne]

10 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Supposedly, the sequel resolves some of these issues, and since these books are pretty short and easy to read, I might try it. But given that I only read this because it's popular, I feel a certain obligation to give something like Forth Wing a shot as well, out of a sense of egalitarianism if nothing else.

I wouldn't have considered Red Rising to be similar to TFE - though I can see how you got there. To me, it was a standard Sci-Fan that was basically "Hunger Games in Space."  I enjoyed book 1, did not like Book 2, hated book 3 and stopped. Granted, when I read these there were only three books, as book 3 released while I was reading book 2 - I simply had no interest in the second trilogy (now tetralogy) when it was announced.

RR Spoilers:

Spoiler

10 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

(For instance, Pax dying was apparently supposed to be a big deal, but I personally couldn't care less.)

I do not think it was his death that was supposed to be a big deal - it was that he was also a Carved Red (and, therefore showed that not all SoA experiments could be considered "heroes" and imply the Sons themselves could also be "Villains" - standard grimdark fare.

Sorry, wrong death. Reviewed the scene and it wasn't bad. 

Not emotional, but not bad. 

YMMV

Edited March 18 by Treamayne
SPAG/Mixed up characters

[Frustration]

5 hours ago, Treamayne said:

I wouldn't have considered Red Rising to be similar to TFE - though I can see how you got there. To me, it was a standard Sci-Fan that was basically "Hunger Games in Space."  I enjoyed book 1, did not like Book 2, hated book 3 and stopped. Granted, when I read these there were only three books, as book 3 released while I was reading book 2 - I simply had no interest in the second trilogy (now tetralogy) when it was announced.

RR Spoilers:

  Reveal hidden contents

I do not think it was his death that was supposed to be a big deal - it was that he was also a Carved Red (and, therefore showed that not all SoA experiments could be considered "heroes" and imply the Sons themselves could also be "Villains" - standard grimdark fare.

YMMV

Well

Spoiler

I think you're confusing Pax with Titus. Titus was the other red who was an abusive piece of garbage. Pax was the big gold who just kept screaming his own name.

 

[Treamayne]

11 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Well

  Hide contents

I think you're confusing Pax with Titus. Titus was the other red who was an abusive piece of garbage. Pax was the big gold who just kept screaming his own name.

Sorry, it has been over a decade. . . My apologies.

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

On 3/18/2026 at 4:38 PM, Schizoposting said:

Red Rising is straight up young adult

While the first book may be, the series overall certainly isn't. By the time of Iron Gold, Darrow is in his 30s.

On 3/18/2026 at 4:38 PM, Schizoposting said:

The first is characterization. While Vin is by no means the world's most complex character, Darrow is positively flat in comparison. I understand that having a "relatable" (i.e. generic) character is part of the appeal, but I think that this comes at the expense at the story as a whole.

I kind of agree with this, though I wouldn't say Darrow is 'flat', though this is probably from the sequels.

On 3/18/2026 at 4:38 PM, Schizoposting said:

he's unreasonably strong, intelligent, charismatic, etc.

On 3/18/2026 at 4:38 PM, Schizoposting said:

it beggars belief that no one else does it; if the Son's of Ares can afford to do it twice in a year, then surely the ultrawealthy can also do it. And even if it's illegal (for whatever reason) we should expect people to still try.

I hadn't thought of this before.

On 3/18/2026 at 4:38 PM, Schizoposting said:

From a story telling perspective, even it can all be hand waved away, it still removes tension from the story, since whenever Darrow gets into trouble, we know that we have nothing to fear, because he'll come up with some genius plan (which he will not tell us), that will magically save the day. All of this is compounded by the fact the other golds are supposed to be the best of the best, and yet they keep acting like morons, just so that Darrow can win. I honestly think that this book would have been stronger if it had Darrow lose in the end, instead of having him outsmart everybody with his genius.

Yeah this doesn't happen in the later books. The other Golds are plenty smart enough. And while Darrow not telling us his plans is kind of annoying, I also do like it sometimes, because I personally never see it coming.

On 3/18/2026 at 4:38 PM, Schizoposting said:

But even this could be excused. By far the biggest problem with Red Rising is the plot. Specifically, the Hunger Games sequence, which was awful. I heard, before reading the book, that it was very fast paced, and maybe that is the case, but then the latter half was both fast paced and tedious. There were many problems with this part, but the fundamental one was that it constantly repeated the same basic plot beats without ever doing much to advance the story, even if nominally a lot of things are happening. I admit, the first few times it was fun seeing Darrow out smart everyone, but it quickly lost it charm. It does not matter whatsoever for the broader story whether or not Darrow captures x castle. At a minimum, I think that this sequence should have been cut in half.

Well, I read Red Rising before Hunger Games, and is the main reason I didn't like Hunger Games, so maybe this is a part of it, but I didn't find it tedious at all when I read it. I don't remember much of the plot, but it all felt important.

And raiding Olympus... that didn't feel tedious at all.

On 3/18/2026 at 4:38 PM, Schizoposting said:

So, to conclude, while both Mistborn and Red Rising share the same basic story, they differ substantially in implementation, and in my opinion, the latter is by far the inferior version. If I had to give a numerical ranking to each respective story, I'd give Mistborn something like 8/10, and Red Rising a 6/10. In plain English, I think that Mistborn is a good book with some issues (e.g. prose), while Red Rising is a decent book that I personally disliked, but I understand why some people may differ. 

 

To me, Red Rising series is kind of an expanded version of Mistborn Era 1

The first three books of RR are TFE, where they try and defeat the LR/Sovereign

Iron Gold is WoA (I won't explain more because spoilers), and Dark Age plus Lightbringer is the start of HoA.

To me, this doesn't make it necessarily worse; it has some similar aspects but everything else is very different. I'll talk more later, I'm short on time.

[Schizoposting]

On 3/19/2026 at 4:59 PM, Through The Living KSauce said:

While the first book may be, the series overall certainly isn't. By the time of Iron Gold, Darrow is in his 30s.

While I have a certain bias against it, I am not inherently opposed to YA—A Wizard of Earthsea is one of the best fantasy books ever written, and it's a literal children's novel. The Rithmatist is also very good, despite being middle grade fiction.

On 3/19/2026 at 4:59 PM, Through The Living KSauce said:

I kind of agree with this, though I wouldn't say Darrow is 'flat', though this is probably from the sequels.

Well, he's not the worst character out there—I have seen some whose only characteristics were "girlboss" and "vaguely defined trauma"—but he lacks any particularity; he doesn't feel like an individual.

A useful comparison, I think, is with David from The Reckoners, who's basically the same character as Darrow; however, and while this may be a bit of gimmick, the bad metaphors really help flesh out his character, by making him "cringe". So, David feels less like an infallible badass, and more like the teenage boy that he is. In Darrow's case, I think that his character could be improved a lot by making his pride and rashness into real character flaws that actually hold him back; for instance, having him losing the games, instead of swallowing his pride and taking the objectively optimal choice. As Darrow is right now, he feels like too much of a power fantasy for my taste. 

On 3/19/2026 at 4:59 PM, Through The Living KSauce said:

Yeah this doesn't happen in the later books. The other Golds are plenty smart enough. And while Darrow not telling us his plans is kind of annoying, I also do like it sometimes, because I personally never see it coming.

My problem is not so much that this done (it would be in character for Darrow to show off how smart he is), but that it's massively overused, especially at critical moments, so the entire plot feels like a string dues ex machinas, which really removes the tension in the story, at least for me.

On 3/19/2026 at 4:59 PM, Through The Living KSauce said:

Well, I read Red Rising before Hunger Games, and is the main reason I didn't like Hunger Games, so maybe this is a part of it, but I didn't find it tedious at all when I read it. I don't remember much of the plot, but it all felt important.

And raiding Olympus... that didn't feel tedious at all.

To me, Red Rising series is kind of an expanded version of Mistborn Era 1

The first three books of RR are TFE, where they try and defeat the LR/Sovereign

Iron Gold is WoA (I won't explain more because spoilers), and Dark Age plus Lightbringer is the start of HoA.

To me, this doesn't make it necessarily worse; it has some similar aspects but everything else is very different. I'll talk more later, I'm short on time.

My fundamental problem with that sequence is that it's completely irrelevant to the main plot about revolution; it would be as if one half of TFE was about Vin just going to balls, with no interruption. Generally, I don't take issue with so called bloat, but in this case, I think that the description is completely justified. Conversely, The Hunger Games, is not about revolution, in the first book at least, so the games are not a diversion from the actual plot the way they are in Red Rising. 

While I like doorstoppers, making a story longer is not inherently a good thing, unless if the extra length is justified. Red Rising, at least, does not do anything to justify this extra length, in my opinion.

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

5 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Well, he's not the worst character out there—I have seen some whose only characteristics were "girlboss" and "vaguely defined trauma"—but he lacks any particularity; he doesn't feel like an individual.

A useful comparison, I think, is with David from The Reckoners, who's basically the same character as Darrow; however, and while this may be a bit of gimmick, the bad metaphors really help flesh out his character, by making him "cringe". So, David feels less like an infallible badass, and more like the teenage boy that he is. In Darrow's case, I think that his character could be improved a lot by making his pride and rashness into real character flaws that actually hold him back; for instance, having him losing the games, instead of swallowing his pride and taking the objectively optimal choice. As Darrow is right now, he feels like too much of a power fantasy for my taste. 

I hadn't thought of comparing him to David before. His pride and rashness do make him lose, but in later books...

5 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

My problem is not so much that this done (it would be in character for Darrow to show off how smart he is), but that it's massively overused, especially at critical moments, so the entire plot feels like a string dues ex machinas, which really removes the tension in the story, at least for me.

I'd never felt it was overused, though that is just me.

5 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

My fundamental problem with that sequence is that it's completely irrelevant to the main plot about revolution; it would be as if one half of TFE was about Vin just going to balls, with no interruption. Generally, I don't take issue with so called bloat, but in this case, I think that the description is completely justified. Conversely, The Hunger Games, is not about revolution, in the first book at least, so the games are not a diversion from the actual plot the way they are in Red Rising. 

While I like doorstoppers, making a story longer is not inherently a good thing, unless if the extra length is justified. Red Rising, at least, does not do anything to justify this extra length, in my opinion.

Well, yes, but I feel like it shows how Darrow is kind of going 'off-track', as the Sons of Ares would've wanted him to work for the Jackal and gain his favour instead of doing what he did. At times, he prioritised the game over the revolution, and I feel like that is part of his character.

I feel like a lot of the reasons you don't like Red Rising is because it's Pierce Brown's first published book, and comparing Red Rising to Mistborn is like comparing Elantris to Mistborn. A lot of this, in my opinion, gets better in the later books.

[Schizoposting]

15 hours ago, Through The Living KSauce said:

I feel like a lot of the reasons you don't like Red Rising is because it's Pierce Brown's first published book, and comparing Red Rising to Mistborn is like comparing Elantris to Mistborn. A lot of this, in my opinion, gets better in the later books.

Well, I am judging the book on its own merits; the condition in which it was published has no bearing on its quality, nor would an improvement in the quality of its sequels retroactively improve the original. 

I am willing to give the sequels a chance—some of my favorite books/series have had weak beginnings—but it seems to me that they still have some of the issues of the original. 

As for it being Brown's first published novel, he clearly has talent, but I would argue that Elantris is the better book, due to originality, if nothing else. But Mistborn is only Brandon's second published book, and it suffers as a result of it. I know that this complaint is trite at this point, but the prose in his early work is...not the best. So, I don't think that it's unfair to compare Red Rising to Mistborn.

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

4 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

and it suffers as a result of it

Really? I didn't feel this way at all.

This may just be because I'm probably not as well-read as you are.

[Schizoposting]

On 3/23/2026 at 1:49 AM, Through The Living KSauce said:

Really? I didn't feel this way at all.

Prose, and what makes it good/bad, is something that is commonly misunderstand: bad prose is not when you write straightforwardly, and good prose is not when you use a lot of unnecessary metaphors—the quality of prose is determined by how well it serves the need of the story. For instance, Tress has good prose, because it does a very good job of creating a whimsical, and somewhat comedic, atmosphere, which is what the story is about.

My problem with Mistborn is not that the prose is straightforward—my problem is that Brandon did not do a very good job at writing said straightforward prose: it's inelegant, verbose, overuses certain words/phrases, etc. Conversely, in something like Earthsea, the prose is very simple, but at the same time (in my opinion at least) beautiful. 

Now, to be fair, I think that criticizing Brandon's prose has become a bit of a meme—even at his worst, it's never actively bad; many writers have prose as of a similar quality or worse, including some of the greats, like Frank Herbert or Asimov. And he's improved a lot over the years: the difference between Mistborn, and say, Isles of the Emberdark, is literally night and day. 

So, in short, while it hardly ruins the story for me, I think that does hold back it back, and that it is something that could be improved upon. But I feel that this issue has more or less resolved itself.

(For whatever reason, a lot of this improvement seems to have happened in the last five years or so; people like to complain about Wind and Truth, and perhaps the language is too modern, but I think that the prose is a lot better than that of its predecessors. Maybe it's because of the secret projects?)

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

5 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

my problem is that Brandon did not do a very good job at writing said straightforward prose: it's inelegant, verbose, overuses certain words/phrases

I didn't feel this was the case either.

Though it has been two years since I read Mistborn, and I haven't re-read it yet. I'll have to see on my re-read.

[Schizoposting]

On 3/25/2026 at 1:24 AM, Through The Living KSauce said:

I didn't feel this was the case either.

Though it has been two years since I read Mistborn, and I haven't re-read it yet. I'll have to see on my re-read.

Personally, I think a useful analogy is that Brandon's work is the literary equivalent of a Hollywood blockbuster—he's more interested in telling a good story than a deep meditation on the human condition. If (like most people) the only things that you've ever read outside of school are Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, and The Da Vinci Code, then reading Mistborn or The Stormlight Archive is going to be mind-blowing. But if you're already acquainted with some of the best wordsmiths of the English language, then Brandon's writing will feel somewhat lacking in comparison. That's why a lot of casual readers consider him to be one of the greatest fantasy writers of all time, while conversely, those who are pretentious call him "slop".

[Frustration]

26 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

Personally, I think a useful analogy is that Brandon's work is the literary equivalent of a Hollywood blockbuster—he's more interested in telling a good story than a deep meditation on the human condition. If (like most people) the only things that you've ever read outside of school are Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, and The Da Vinci Code, then reading Mistborn or The Stormlight Archive is going to be mind-blowing. But if you're already acquainted with some of the best wordsmiths of the English language, then Brandon's writing will feel somewhat lacking in comparison. That's why a lot of casual readers consider him to be one of the greatest fantasy writers of all time, while conversely, those who are pretentious call him "slop".

It's been a long time since Hollywood was interested in telling a good story, and I'd say that a good story is what 90% of fantasy readers are actually looking for.

[Schizoposting]

2 hours ago, Frustration said:

It's been a long time since Hollywood was interested in telling a good story

I admit, I don't watch many contemporary films (I don't care much for superheroes), but I will have to disagree here—Inception, Her, Rogue One, Arrival, Everything Everywhere All at Once, Oppenheimer, etc., all came out in the last 15 years or so, and they're good stories, in my opinion at least. I would also imagine that some of the Marvel films are at least competently made, fun, films in the vein of Avatar or Jurassic Park.

It's certainly true that Hollywood outputs a lot of derivative garbage, but similar things can be said of contemporary writing, like Fifty Shades of Grey, or James Patterson. And in fantasy, you have authors like Terry Brooks or David Eddings who told the same basic story over and over again (although competently). So, I don't think that this is exclusive to Hollywood.   

2 hours ago, Frustration said:

and I'd say that a good story is what 90% of fantasy readers are actually looking for.

Good art does not have to be antithetical to good story telling (although it may be), and I would argue that the latter requires the former, at least to some extent. But I would not say that Brandon's work has no artistic depth: in my view, he's like Nolan in that he combines spectacle with a moderate amount of said depth. This makes them better than most directors/authors, but at the end of the day, their work is still entertainment.

Edited March 26 by Schizoposting