I havenāt read a lot of Sanderson, but Iāve read enough to sense that this difference is in true personal disposition.
Sandersonās drive seems to be more of wonder, curiosity and adventure, and the stories delve into morality and justice as a source of plot tension.
In contrast, I think OSC has always been more of a black-and-white thinker. I think his best stories have been ones where he is exploring a moral struggle or thought experiment. But at the end of the story, you can pull out what OSC has concluded morally about those characters - who is good, who is bad (and always has been), and maybe who is a necessary evil.
All of OSCās stories are about categorizing people, behaviors and decisions into āshould/should notā buckets. And Iāve just never gotten that sense from Sandersonās books.
I havenāt read a lot of Sanderson, but Iāve read enough to sense that this difference is in true personal disposition.
Sandersonās drive seems to be more of wonder, curiosity and adventure, and the stories delve into morality and justice as a source of plot tension.
In contrast, I think OSC has always been more of a black-and-white thinker. I think his best stories have been ones where he is exploring a moral struggle or thought experiment. But at the end of the story, you can pull out what OSC has concluded morally about those characters - who is good, who is bad (and always has been), and maybe who is a necessary evil.
All of OSCās stories are about categorizing people, behaviors and decisions into āshould/should notā buckets. And Iāve just never gotten that sense from Sandersonās books.
This is a really good analysis. Thank you!