This overturning is a good part of the series. Accepting that the truth is more complication than one objective Truth was literally mentioned earlier in the series.
This feels like a huge assumption. A āfeelingā that the book doesnāt sit well with you does not send every person incapable of literary analysis to randomly latch onto random details. Many people like specific sections and dislike others. Any reader can do this much without writing a complex analysis. Why is literally analysis required to determine someoneās opinion of a piece of media? Can I not say that the Shattered Plains arch felt like a copy of Azimir, and then conclude that it feels like padding and makes me dislike that part of the book?
Why is literary critique the āend all be allā, especially when the prose is included in a critique, but you say the content is more important. The popularity is the collective reaction of all readersā opinions, regardless of how they word their opinions. Most complaints I have seen have said āJasnahās debate with Odium is simplistic and makes Jasnah seem stupid for not considering his responsesā or āthe Shattered Plains arc is a copy of Azimir that doesnāt stand out from its other and also poorly sets up Sigzilās failure and makes his ending come out of nowhere and feel forced.ā
Content judgement is not the problem. The problem is that certain parts ring hollow for certain individuals or groups, which is completely okay. Nothing Brandon has written is objectively perfect and is the absolute perfection of writing that all writers aim for, so we can safely say that he will mess up something, and with a book as large as WaT those sorts of mistakes pile up. The book is seen as flawed not because the masses tunnel vision on superficial details, but because they raise genuine issues with the writing.