I don't really know about the epic fantasy issue, as I don't really care about genres or categories. I like what I like and that's that. I like several classical music pieces, but I don't know anything about music in general or classical in particular, much less the composers. I like several poems, but am fairly ignorant of and indifferent to poetry. And it's the same thing with genre fiction. I don't know anything about writing styles or bloat or whatever, and I really can't understand what people are complaining of. A TV critic I regularly read makes similar complaints about Kurt Sutter's TV shows, which again, I don't see where he's coming from. As I pointed out in a comment on his blog, absolutely every fan I know thinks more Sons of Anarchy is a GOOD thing, and loved extra length episodes. So I honestly don't know what people like this are talking about. I think Tom has a good point specifying the difference between a good writer and a good storyteller, and I could not give less of a shit about the difference, only that it explains why I like reading their books, regardless of what others might find of technical merit or lacking therein. So that's where I'm coming from. I'm not going to remotely defend the genre or the series, because I like it and see absolutely no reason why I should expect anyone to share my taste, or how their opinions should diminish my enjoyment.

On the other hand, just about everyone on Tor.com is a complete moron. I have read almost nothing on that site that did not leave me with contempt for the intelligence, wit or comprehension skills of the author. When they do have some of those traits, they choose to cancel them out with arrogance that conflates ideological preferences with objective morality. This guy doesn't seem any better. What on earth does his video game experience have to do with the topic at hand?

I don't know about Sanderson. I could not get into Mistborn in several tries, despite finding a few things to like. I did not like Sanderson's writing style in general, being unable to articulate my problem, but finding it reminiscent of some other authors I similarly disliked. Kevin J Anderson, and a number of his fellow Star Wars pastiche writers were most prominent, and Anderson stuck in my head due to his comparable work on Dune. I liked Dune, even though I had some problems with the later books, but could not stand his prequel trilogy, quitting after the first two books. I can't say what he did wrong (though transcribing a representative conversation from the Dune appendices as a literal conversation sticks out), but just found the writing style as distasteful a facsimile of the real thing as Diet Coke is to Coke. I can't explain it, but Sanderson's writing had that same Nutrisweet aftertaste that Anderson, Terry Goodkind, John Marco, David Farland and some others I have since forgotten. I still gave him a chance with WoT, because bad WoT is better than no WoT, and I still enjoyed the "Sword of Truth" in spite of the writing style, so it was possible that Sanderson would manage with WoT. Gathering Storm came close to what I was hoping for at the time, but when Towers of Midnight came out, suddenly the flaws in Gathering Storm were highlighted, exposed and magnified. Sanderson did an absolutely shitty job, and it stands up even worse under scrutiny. I pretty much just read them through once, and never went back except for a cursory paperback reread to make sure I had everything down to read the next book. When I really went over the books to do my Egwene's Evil thing, I actually examined them. I don't know how much was Sanderson's originality, and how much was incomprehension of the original material, but it was sheer, stupid, crap. And it can't be whitewashed as him having too much of a life to be as familiar with the minutiae as real fans, or Jordan's notes being unclear, or "Team Jordan" being divided on how to handle the material, since a lot of it was simply bad grammar, bad dialogue and appalling vocabulary skills. I could never understand how disagreement with an author's perspective could cause people to hate him to the degree I see expressed about Terry Goodkind. Laurell K Hamilton came close, but I just stopped reading her books, which is unusual for me if I have invested a lot of time or read multiple books of a series, and couldn't really stir up much in the way of feeling for my projected image of the author. I get the feeling now, even if I still don't get the rationale in the other cases. And when you learn to notice a trait in an author or a work, you often can't UNsee it. The handful of quotes from Mistborn and his other work have not made me think his works are going to be any different.

For example, a quote I see a lot is one where someone asks another character, "My dear, did you just attempt to prove the existence of God through your cleavage" or something like that. Another one I see is an apparent mercenary whining about being scorned for just doing a job and selling a service. The latter quote is presented in a way that makes me think there is no relevant context to it, that it is presented in such a way as to sway the reader or at least represent what the book/author thinks is a legitimate perspective, rather than a simplistic ignorance of anything outside 21st century culture and perspective. Mercenaries are reviled because they are paid to commit murder and by their financial priority, forfeit the distinction that covers soldiers, and furthermore, are to military virtue as prostitution is to love. But either Sanderson is too stupid to figure that out, or is insufficiently skilled in expressing his characters' point of view to come up with a better defense, or is such a bad writer, that his attempts at irony go right over the reader's head. Or, heaven forbid, it might have been an attempt at humor. The literary nightmare known as "Mat Cauthon's PoV chapters" suggests this could be the case.

The former referenced quote about God & cleavage, is another example of Sanderson's humor, which, for reasons my inadequate literary analysis skills leaves me unable to properly express, comes across as a comedian saying "Get it, get it?" after every joke. And that was something else I picked out of his version of WoT - a kind of self-consciousness, where he felt as a fan, the need to play up dramatic moments and cool stuff for other fans. Jordan could make cool moments cool without having to call attention to them. The Asha'man opening fire at Dumai's Wells, the last stand of Emond's Field with the other villages coming to the rescue, Ingtar's rear guard sacrifice - these things were described in a way that made you see their natural or inherent awesomeness. When reading Lan's charge at Demandred, you can almost feel Sanderson hovering over your shoulder saying "Isn't this awesome? Isn't it? Isn't it?! Check that out! Cool, right?"

That bit right there, only reinforces my view, because it looks like the exact same thing - a fanboy whose gimmick is self-consciously playing to an audience, by mere contrarian plotting. That sort of thing can be welcome and rewarding, if well-executed or done in a clever manner. That's a major component of Joss Whedon's success, and a large part of the appeal of the Dresden Files. But I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that Brandon Sanderson has the skills to pull that off in an entertaining manner. The thing people claim to like about his WoT books seems to be exactly what this author is applauding in Mistborn. There is motion taking place, which the readers appreciate, based largely on the frame of reference that real writers have constructed for them. I say motion, as opposed to action, because there really isn't anything going on for the characters, just an event in their lives. Dumai's Wells was motion, in that Rand was free of captivity, and the Shaido were being killed in large numbers, but it was also action, in that it altered the characters, and changed the dynamics of their relationships to one another. A summary of the events in motion in one of RJ's books would leave out a lot of content, not just words describing the content. I cannot feel certain that the same could be said for one of Sanderson's. According to the article, "no last-minute Rohirrim arrive to save them." In RotK, we know why and how the Rohirrim arrive. It fits in the story, and while you could call it convenient, Tolkien showed how and why they would come. In Sanderson's WoT, things happened either because Jordan had built up enough understanding of the characters and world that you would get how or why they would happen, or else Sanderson just MADE it happen. This is the case with much of Egwene's storyline. Jordan made an effort (not a great or clear one, IMO, but it's there if you know where to look) to show why the Hall would vote to declare war on Elaida and thus hand Egwene a major triumph, as well as understand why her technicality win would still stand, and why her rivals would accept her domination. Sanderson's portrayal of a similar vote, on the other hand, is completely inexplicable. There is no understanding why the characters would do what he has them do, there are no supporting character or setting details that make it understandable. A lot of stupid arguments on this site and its predecessor begged the question by saying "It happened because RJ wanted it that way." These people were generally being obtuse and missing the point, as well as missing the details that obviate their contention. Yes, the world is in the state it is in, because RJ wanted it that way, but he also provided a reasonable explanation and background of how it got that way. That everything which occurs is the author's choice does not change the ability of the readers to come up with in-story reasons why and how characters would do things according to details already revealed about them. This is not the case with Sanderson. "BS wanted it that way" is the only explanation for a lot events that come to pass in the series. Androl's super-gateway ability, for instance. The only previously seen example of a weak channeler with a particular specialty that outstripped her normal range of abilities was explained that this was the one major thing she did, over centuries of practice. She was so used to shielding channelers, many of whom were relatively untrained so that it was generally easy for her, which boosted her confidence, and in turn, expanded her subconscious limitations on her ability. That in no way, shape or form, explains how someone channeling for less than two years, manifests a particular ability with such power that he busts the paradigm! Other people have shielded Nynaeve and Elayne. It is not an impossible feat, it was just unexpected that such a weak woman could accomplish it, but long practice and experience had refined the efficiency of her ability, and RJ noted that skill can compensate for shortcomings in strength. Nothing like that applies to how or why Androl can out-gateway anyone, other than a sort of false humility in a Mary-Sue. As with his plot in Mistborn (or my unread understanding thereof), Sanderson seems to be merely deliberately avoiding a trope. In the case of Androl, it is the cliche of making his surrogate character overtly stronger; instead Sanderson makes him apparently weak, but with a single really awesome talent that effectively makes him more deadly than more powerful characters. It does not make Sanderson original (for one thing, Michael Stackpole did the same thing in his Star Wars pastiches with his surrogate Jedi character), it just illustrates his self-conscious posturing, and a kind of back-handed pandering.

All in all, I would not call that article very useful, except for giving a few more pieces that supported a lot of my own conjectures about Sanderson. It doesn't say as much about Sanderson or Jordan or the genre as much as it does about its writer and his personal moods and tastes. I wouldn't even agree with those comments at the end about subtlety, so much as say that the stuff to which he is referring actually shows the difference between Jordan's and Sanderson's command of detail and ability to keep things straight or run more than one train of thought. Jordan could weave a pattern, though everyone might have a different view as whether or not the pattern is good or clear or whatever. Sanderson is barely capable of assembling a chain.