What Makes Prose GOOD? Tolkien, Sanderson, Jemisin, Rothfuss, Erikson | Professor Craig Explains 

Probably worth mentioning that Tolkien was an Oxford Professor of Anglo-Saxon and before that had worked on dictionary etymology concerning English words of Germanic origin.

Tolkien and Erikson are my favorites, so I guess I like long sentences and don’t much care about Germanic vs. Latinate words. Erikson’s writing is more modern than Tolkien’s, but I don’t mind. The key to long sentences is parallel structure. Here’s a prose quote from Erikson: “He was a man who would never ask for sympathy. He was a man who sought only to do what was right. Such people appear in the world, every world, now and then, like a single refrain of some blessed song, a fragment caught on the spur of an otherwise raging cacophony. Imagine a world without such souls. Yes, it should have been harder to do.” That’s a monster sentence in the middle, but it reads like a poem: Such people appear in the world, every world, now and then, like a single refrain of some blessed song, a fragment caught on the spur of an otherwise raging cacophony. Tolkien and Erikson both liked to write poetry and incorporated it in their fiction, but often their prose reads like poetry as well. And I like that.

Brandon Sanderson had a great quote from a podcast I remember listening to where he described prose like glass on a window. Very rich and beautiful prose is like a stained glass window that is beautiful to look at (and read) but can obscure what is beyond the window a bit (the story/plot). And minimalist prose is like a clear window that's not noticable at all but also doesn't have it's own extra beauty. And he said it's up to each writer to choose what type of window they want to look theough. He also said that he was the kind of writer who looks through a clear window haha

As a non-native speaker i can say that Brandon's prose are way more comfortable to read and fully grasp the meaning of each sentence. And much better to translate too.

I gained an insane amount of respect for Rothfuss when I realized everything Felurian says in Wise Man's Fear is written in iambic pentameter. Some conversations with Denna as well.

I appreciate why audiences, who enjoy modern literature with increased pacing, dislike Tolkien. But I also adore him. Where modern works are masterfully paced like a gourmet meal, Tolkien takes his time, presenting a home cooked meal by a comfortable fire.

I personally love CS Lewis’ style, it flows beautifully but he also incorporates plenty of more romantic sounding words and descriptions that honestly make the otherwise captivating story feel magical.

I find Sanderson's prose to be very cinematic, more concerned with the scene than with the words describing it. My favourite prose I've read are Robin Hobb's and Joe Abercrombie's.

This was completely fascinating. Yes, please do more stuff like it. I think I tend to lean towards preferring slightly more plain and utilitarian prose. I like Tolkien, but his prose is so formal sounding it's hard for me to truly love it, even though the story and characters are very good. Rothfuss I like, but I'd say his prose doesn't get so flowery as to be distracting. There are other problems with Kingkiller besides the prose. Jemison was a little hard for me to get through. The woman is clearly incredibly talented, but I found it hard to like The Broken Earth. And Sanderson's prose might be a little too utilitarian, although it doesn't really bother me. Ultimately, if you give me good characters I can forgive a lot of weaknesses in prose. I love authors like Drew Hayes and Michael J. Sullivan. They excel at character work, even if their prose isn't top notch.

I would be interested in a larger comparison of Sanderson's chapters against each other. Most of his novels that I've read switch character perspectives at chapter breaks, telling the story from their own perspective. I get the feeling that the prose is heavily influenced by the character's voice, characters who are each telling a story their way. It would be interesting to see if a statistical analysis reveals any significant variations across character voices or not.

Tolkien was a linguist who deeply understood etymology. He used Germanic versus Latinate versus Finnish, of all things, to ground his various peoples in distinct vocabulary, and his descriptive paragraphs and other aspects of his own voice reverted to his own mix, which was certainly affected by his deep knowledge and awareness of language. He was up to more than merely communicating story to reader. / Please, by all means, do more of this sort of analysis, it's fascinating. Bravo, sir.

The chapter where K’vothe got his pipes had some of the best prose I’ve ever read. The chapter was like a beautiful song holding you at attention in a state of tension as it slowly brought you to tears and the scene was essentially the same. It blew my mind. Ive read a lot of books, but never have I read a chapter quite like it. It’s by far the most beautiful chapter ever written, in my opinion.

Coming off of Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson and starting Steven Erikson’s Malazan: Book Of The Fallen series has been a task and also awesome. I notice myself reading slower but it’s different in a way that I think I needed. Loving it.

Author you didn't cover that would probably help to look at as well: Robin Hobb. Aside from that, I don't know how I feel about some small bits of it being tied to prefering word choice origins as a particular influence. Maybe more related to what is commonly used in your area geographically or the type of required reading you were exposed to in English classes. I think for me, it comes down to how much is and isn't said in as few words. Tolkien feels very wordy, but very basic as well. A lot of words for very basic actions descriptions to build up the idea that the path they took was very narry and impossible to turn around and go back. However it does fill in more detail to directly immerse you in the terrain- soft and boggy ground, springs, banks, brooks, weedy bed, etc. Brandon's describes the terrain in a broad way which your imagination can fill in however you like- things like plateaus, highstorms, poor cover. Tolkien's description meanders the whole scene, while brandon's is more focused on details that concerns the characters and the plot more. Basics of what it looks like and how it relates more directly to what the character is doing and what they want to do.

I like Brandon's simpler, minimalist prose. I'm the kind of person that appreciates a good story and enjoyable characters, and that is what Brandon really delivers on.

To be honest, as a former literature student, I would put more emphasis on quality than quantity when analysing prose styles. Does the author show mastery over tropes and figures? Are their metaphors fresh or overused? Is their paragraph structure comprehensive? Are they proficient in optimal usage of meaningful details in the right order? Statistics are fun, but I don't think that they give us the full picture.

This is super interesting. As a reader of Sanderson, and someone who just started reading more, I can say that for some reason, his books just flow like water. I don’t catch myself having to reread something, or ask myself “wtf did that just say?!” But I also really enjoyed ur Tolkien reading so I’m wondering where I stand!

Robert Jordan's prose in the Wheel of Time is pretty top notch, although he tended to get a bit too heavy and longwinded in the whole describing things aspect, especially in his later books. "His eyes on the reflection, he was surprised when Red suddenly stopped. On the point of urging the bay on, he realized that they stood on the edge of a clay precipice, above a huge excavation. Most of the hill had been dug away to a depth of easily a hundred paces. Certainly more than one hill had vanished, and maybe some farmers’ fields, for the hole was at least ten times as wide as it was deep. The far side appeared to have been packed hard to a ramp. There were men on the bottom, a dozen of them, getting a fire started; down there, night was already descending. Here and there among them armor turned the light, and swords swung at their sides. He hardly glanced at them. Out of the clay at the bottom of the pit slanted a gigantic stone hand holding a crystal sphere, and it was this that shone with the last sunlight. Rand gaped at the size of it, a smooth ball-he was sure not so much as a scratch marred its surface-at least twenty paces through. Some distance away from the hand, a stone face in proportion had been uncovered. A bearded man’s face, it thrust out of the soil with the dignity of vast years; the broad features seemed to hold wisdom and knowledge." - From Chapter 20 of The Great Hunt

The Germanic/Latinate hypothesis is intriguing. Would be curious to see a more detailed NLP analysis of these texts and compare them to semantic judgments NL and L2 English speakers of similar Germanic & Latinate sentences

I've got to say I was intially unconvinced that Germanic words vs Latin was a big factor but you've won me round a little. For me I feel like I know if a book is well written if there is a high percentage of prose in comparison to dialogue, for example the worst examples of YA novels tend to have pages and pages of dialogue with a little description either side of conversations. I don't know if theres a point when too much prose hurts my enjoyment, there probably is though. The other two aspects you mentioned are definatley sentence structure and punctuation. Also, I know loads of people who hate the more adjective riddled styles like a HP Lovecraft and find it a bit annoying and forced.

Sanderson. I like understanding what i'm reading. Life is complex enough. "Apes together strong"

I did my Bachelors in English Linguistics and some postgrad study in Old English, so this was a really enjoyable watch for me. I'm by no means an expert so I don't have any edgy internet genius comments to throw in. I do have some thoughts to throw in, but not the edgy ego kind. One factor I think is important to bring up is the author's awareness of the criteria in the video, namely the origin of words. If the author isn't consciously aware of the origin of the words they're using, I think that's relevant. The broader angle you took, conversational vs poetic, is a good way to frame it because they are most likely not thinking toooooo deeply about the origin of each word. So either awareness of word origin or awareness of writing style is a good factor to consider in a follow up video. What are their intentions when writing? What does "writing poetic" vs "writing conversational" mean and how different is this meaning between Tolkein's time and ours? Also, Tolkein is actually kind of hard to compare with modern authors IMHO. Tolkein vs his contemporaries might give some insights. But English has changed a lot since his day, every year we move farther from the mid-20th century, and every year that language becomes more dated, falling out of use. I don't think using his writing was unfair though. Overall, cool video idea, lots to think about! I'd definitely watch more.

Tad Williams memory Sorrow and Thorn series as well as shadow March is my favorite style of prose. It's poetic and beautiful but also accessible and easy to understand.

Really enjoyed that analysis. From my experience with all of those books mentioned aside from "The Fifth Season", a lot of my prose preference has to do with pace. I found Tolkein just REALLY "slow" like it takes 1 whole paragraph to say: "The hobbits descended a hill with a small river alongside them". Which just annoys me to no end. Don't get me wrong, I like vivid description but it has to be concise and well considered. Sanderson is exceedingly approachable along with Rothfuss. Whereas Erikson just has DENSE prose with a lot of subtext at times that can make it difficult to read.

There is Tolkien and then there is the rest of the world, you can try to imitate, but you cannot reach him 🥰

Well, atleast Sanderson finishes his books so you get to actually enjoy more of them.

As someone who covers prose a lot in his reviews, I thought his was a great video. Would love to see more.

I'd love to see you delve deeper with this. Surprised you didn't use Game of Thrones, and compare it to some young adult fantasy like Maze Runner or something. A full chart breakdown of lots of books would be great to see, and might be a very good way for people to find more writing they enjoy.

I enjoy good prose but after reading people like sanderson, I've realised it's not important. Sanderson is my fav author of all time, and yes his prose isn't anything exceptional. It's not bad, it's simple clean, not bland just casual (sometimes bland, but mostly not). I don't care if his prose is too simple, his storytelling skills beat everyone out there

You know, as much as I like this video, it doesnt really say much about the writing style of these authors

I spoke to someone reading Brandon Sanderson for the first time and they said it felt like some of the conversations/dialog was from the modern day and not in the sort of time period you would expect.

Tolkien = too wordy for me. When something is excessively descriptive it distracts from the story and makes me want to stop reading.

I like somewhere between Sanderson and Tolkien ideally. Sanderson is good but sometimes I want more from him while someone like Tolkien to me (my opinion) spends way too much time describing something that could be half the length. Personally I’d rather read someone like Martin, Jordan or Herbert personally. I also love how Ruocchio of the Sun Eater series writes. His prose is great without being distracting

Tolkien's prose flirts with meter at times without breaking into outright poetry (see the opening of the Battle of the Pellenor Fields), and he also throws in conventions of Germanic poetry. Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli meeting Eomer follows the "Who are you stranger?" -> "I'm , and this is why I'm a badass" convention that you see in Germanic poetry when a foreigner runs across a local patrol, including the whole "stranger should identify himself first" bit of manners. It also begins with a line of straight-up Germanic alliterative verse: "What néws from the nórth, / ríders of Róhan?"

Hm, I like Sanderson, Tolkien, Rothfuss, and Erikson (haven't actually read Jemisin). Of those, I think Sanderson is probably the most readable (easiest), but the least "lyrical", which is pretty much how he describes his own prose style. Tolkien is on the other end of that spectrum, still very readable, but more "crafted" or "ornamented." Probably my favorites when it comes to fantasy prose are Tad Williams and Guy Gavriel Kay, though. Especially Kay. His stuff is often downright beautiful, but still easy to read. Also, interesting point about the germanic vs latin word usage - I'd never considered that.

I don't understand why people would like Rothfuss but dislike Sanderson. I tried to read "Name of the Wind", but it just read like a book written for(and by) someone around 13 years old. Also, his repeated use of a satanists catch phrase was a huge turn off.

Brandon Sanderson being terrible is not a subjective thing, HE WRITES CRAP, he writes on the level of chat gtp, probably the AI can do prose better and im not even exaggerating.

Sanderson is too basic. Rothfuss is borderline purple prose. I'm not that into Tolkien's prose but that's entirely personal preference. Haven't read Malazan. For me personally, I think the perfect prose would be George RR Martin's. The only flaw I've found in his writing are his excessive food descriptions

I am an Indian here. Of the books listed I have read 2 of them. Sanderson and Rothfuss. While Sanderson's prose isn't as poetic as Rothfuss, there isn't anything wrong or alarming with his writing. Both give me almost the same impression. And also Sanderson tends to have more active scenes then Rothfuss so there's that to consider as well.

Thank you, this was very informative! Structurally, it was interesting to see that Tolkien has a lot of "this and that" constructions, which makes his sentences longer, but not so much more complex. Jemisin seems to be the most deliberately sparse writer, she gets to the point first and adds flavour later. Erikson packs a lot into each sentence, he likes adding new details, as opposed to describing the same thing with more words.

I would love a long video on an in depth analysis of JK Rowling’s writing style writin style from you! Your way of analysing prose is unqiuely insightful and really different from all the other prose-analysis videos I've seen.

It's funny, I never realized that Sanderson uses so many contractions outside of dialogue, but that's probably because I only listen to his books rather than reading them off the page. I intend to read the leather-bound copy of The Way of Kings whenever I get it though, so maybe I'll have a different opinion of his writing after I read it on the page.

Brandon Sanderson is poor literary device execution but good plot development. There is almost no prose identity in his style; it mostly communicates in assumptions for the reader's view. Frankly, Sanderson is painful to read because of how simple the prose is. I still appreciate his victories in dialogue at times, but I'd like to see a masterpiece come from Sanderson challenging himself more.

Could you please also post the analyzed paragraphs for Jemisin, Rothfuss and Erikson as well? It would be nice to have a comparison. Or perhaps all five, for that matter. It might be easier to compare them when we see them written versus hearing only two of them.

Who gives a fuck I mean truly? As long as you know what your doing and have developed a good story who cares about the number of Germanic words the authors weren't conscious of that while writing I don't see why these factors matter at all

The fact that you nailed Erickson’s style purely by these metrics, never having read the books, lends a huge credit to the validity of these criteria as a measuring tool. The Malazan books are notorious for their density and eloquence, which makes them a joy and a challenge. I enjoy Sanderson, Rothfuss, and Tolkien as well, and the information here will add a lot of insight into why I feel the way I do about each of them. Thank you for sharing!

I really appreciate this video! I’m a writer/author but have only published non-fiction works to date. I’m currently working on a fantasy trilogy and find Sanderson’s works extremely fluid and inspirational. I tried the audio book for The Name of the Wind and thought it was horrible, but that could have been because of the narrator. I plan to read the print version to give it another chance. Anyway… I’ve been struggling over writing in my own natural writing voice or trying to be more stylistically similar to be of these authors. Your video helps me see that my own “voice” isn’t quite as important as my story because different people will love different things no matter which way I go. Thanks again!

Well done sir. Please more of this, you have yourself a new fan in me. However, I must insist as a "fantasy fan" it is your duty to read some Erikson.

I find it weird to compare these guys to Tolkien at all. Tolkien was an appreciated professor of Old English, and his writing in Lord of the Rings makes it very clear that there's not a single word in those books that aren't there for a reason. The entire book just screams masterpiece. I haven't come across any real comparison to it in terms of being well-written. Sanderson and Rothfuss are... I wouldn't say they are bad authors, but compared to Tolkien they are obviously very uneven in their prose. I think they are better compared to each other than to Tolkien.

There are few fantasy writers who really have what I consider a strong grasp of prose. Gene Wolfe gets there. When I think of good prose, I think of Wilkie Collins, Nabokov, Proust, Borges. Fantasy writers can often have very good prose, but I find that it's hard for them to reach really high up in terms of their style, I think because they're more in love with adventure and the world that they're building than they are captivated by a love for language itself. You read the Narnia chronicles, and the prose is extremely simple, as it is for children, however for simple prose I find it to be stunningly effective.

I have to say I dont even see a great difference between germanic and latinate words. So I'm not sure that this makes such a big difference.

So, as a writer is there a tool that would automatically break this down… like pro writing aid? Does it?

I think, the real art is to adjust your prose, paragraph for paragraph, depending on what you want to achieve with it.

Loved this, please do more videos like this and don’t be afraid to do deeper dives.

Erikson is the goat. Incredible writer and storyteller unlike anything else I've ever read

I'm not an avid reader, but I find the process of writing interesting. You explained this really well and engaged me! Thanks

I can't stand when people confuse objective quality with subjective taste. Your ability to enjoy something is subjective. The quality of the quality of the thing itself is objective. Another thing people need to understand in this regard is that our ability to enjoy something is a developed ability, not unlike a skill. I have no doubt that there are plenty of people in the world who enjoy McDonalds more than they enjoy, say, a really good steakhouse. If, however, you think McDonalds is just as "good" quality as the steakhouse, you're kind of an idiot. Further, you don't have to validate your subjective ability to enjoy something, by insisting that the thing you enjoy is just as objectively good as things which are enjoyed by other people. If you feel that need, it is evidence of an inferiority complex. It means you feel threatened by the idea that someone else might have better developed taste than you. Lastly, people often think that having good taste or recognizing that such a thing exists is snobbish. What real snobbery ACTUALLY is, is not in liking something good because it is good, but rather to be SEEN to like something good, because it makes you feel superior. A person with good taste likes good things for their own sake. A snob wants to appear to like good things, because it gives them respect, or makes them feel superior. Notice that for the snob, the thing itself almost doesn't even enter in to it. The perception of others matters more than the quality of the thing. As such, if something is regarded by the 'elite' as being good, snobs will like it whether it is good or not. Likewise, if something is regarded as being low, snobs will dislike it whether it is good or not. In fact, snobbery requires a sharp delineation between groups, so being seen to dislike the right things is just as important as being seen to like the right things, maybe even more important. This incidentally is the explanation for things like wine tasters being able to be fooled into voting cheap wine as the best, because it was highly praised before they tasted it, and so on.

If you're going to call prose "poetic" you need to actually analyze how many poetic devices they're using in how the words are organized in the sentence. Using more germanic words does not make something "poetic" -- using poetic devices does. Alliteration, assonance, anaphora, epistrophe, chiasmus, other sonic elements that make the writing flow. Along that vein, variety of sentence lengths and sentence structures matters a whole lot more than the average sentence length. If every sentence is long or every sentence is short, your writing will not have any musicality at all.

Erikson: This is probably some thick writing to wade through. Pretty spot on.

Is he doing the “one does not simply” pose in the thumbnail on purpose? 😆

I'd never thought to try and quantify prose quality. Seems a daunting task and I think you did an admirable job. I think what makes prose truly stand out to me is how well it evokes the feeling of the situation being portrayed, which is impossible to quantify 😆 It just becomes "I know it when I see it" which helps no one. So, yeah, I'd love to see more discussions about prose. I'd recommend looking at some passages from R. Scott Bakker because his is the best fantasy prose I've readin recent memory.

This is really fascinating. As you acknowledge, this is a pretty narrow way to analyze in terms of "what makes good prose," but it does create a really interesting comparison. My one complaint would be that you say you chose descriptive paragraphs to get the author's voice, not the character's. I think this discounts that many authors alter their prose for characters. Rothfuss writes differently in "Slow Regard" than he does in his other books because the perspective is different, for example. To find a more "average" idea of the voice of an author, you'd have to find samples from different characters. This is really cool though, and I look forward to more analysis like this!

Growing up, I really enjoyed thick descriptive prose. Now I feel like so many things are competing for my attention that I get really irritated with fluff words and descriptions that take forever to get to the point. Your adjectives scale illustrates this well, because even though Rothfuss is long winded, his descriptions don't feel overbearing to me. Very few words are wasted and it keeps me from having to skim paragraphs like I do with other authors.

PEASE MAKE MORE OF THESE KINDS OF VIDEOS!! This was incredibly informative and helpful for me as a fiction writer. It helps to analyze the science fiction/fantasy books I read for fun. That way, I'm soaking more of them into my writing toolbox.

Outstanding analysis. I wonder how this would look if one took all of these authors' non-dialogue writing and see if these samples hold up. Ironically, though I love the Malazan series, I prefer the more poetic, Germanic-heavy prose and wish Erikson had leaned more into it. The use of Latinate words in Malazan (the one that springs to mind is the word "notion," which is used a ton in the series) could be jarring at times given the fantasy setting. Even despite that, though, I think Erikson's prose is good; he manages to paint such vivid pictures, which is more important at the end of the day. Conversely, Rothfuss's word choice is beautifully poetic, but I absolutely could not stand The Name of the Wind. Story, characters, and world-building are what it comes down to at the end of the day.

"Sandersonian" I like that

Interesting topic. I think that people who like poetry appreciate prose more than those who don't. Personally, I do not enjoy poetry so naturally I like Sanderson's style the most. It felt quite fresh in comparison to some other books I've tried in the past. It also comes down to skill of the writer. If a novice writer adds long descriptions and a bunch of adverbs, it likely won't come out as a good prose. I've quit on a book because the author spend a whole page describing a subway station which I couldn't quite imagine exactly the way it was described, even after multiple reads. In that case, it would have been better to just write a short vague description of a subway station. My mind would have filled the gaps easily. For me, its frustrating to have to read through long descriptions or weird metaphors every paragraph when I'm eager to know what happens next in the story. Just feels like a filler.

So refreshing to find a channel that actually talks about the text rather than the story being told. The way a book is written and how competently it is written is far more important (to me) than any ideas or plot points it presents. I think it was Jim Butcher that said "A good author can take a bad idea and make a good book, whilst a bad author can take a good idea and make a bad book" i think sanderson was quoting him in one of his free youtube lectures.

Disagree entirely. A few cherrypicked examples on each side is not at all sufficient evidence for this claim. There are Eastern and Southern European writers for example with very elaborate, poetic prose that is much more Latin oriented than Germanic. If you listen to Brando Sando talk about his own writing process, it's very clear that his lack of focus on prose vs. plot is an intentional stylistic choice. He intentionally takes a "why use many word when few word do trick" approach. It's not some sort of etymological accident. This seems like a classic example of noticing an interesting correlation (in a small sample size at that) and conflating it with causation. I worry about people (including myself) over-analyzing the soul out of their prose by trying to look for technical tricks when it's probably more of a matter of practice, openness to raw creativity (which may involve discarding a lot of technical rules), and focus on prose and underlying theme over other elements.

Descriptive prose used to be more prominent in fiction writing because--before movies, television, and the internet--readers had to use their own imaginations to visualize settings. Victorian novels are full of long descriptive passages describing landscapes, animals, plants, buildings, people, clothing, furniture...because most people had never seen even a painting of those places, people, things. This began to change with the advent of movies filmed in "exotic" locations, and now readers have been saturated with visual images from early childhood. Yes, description's still needed--but less of it, and many writers (including me) trickle-feed it in with non-descriptive phrases and sentences. We're told (by editors and sometimes by readers) that readers get bored with, will skip, long descriptive passages. Tolkein grew up in a world still full of primarily written descriptions of places; Sanderson grew up with movies & TV. But to me there's another, and more important (for fiction) difference between the Tolkein and Sanderson paragraphs and that's in the service of drawing the reader into the story. Sanderson's paragraph describes a place as if giving a briefing to someone--a neutral, undefined voice talking to "somebody" also undefined. It's facts. Tolkein's paragraph immediately places the reader with characters going somewhere and created suspense and discomfort...they're in a fold, they can't get out with their baggage, they have to go downward, it's getting darker and narrower and wetter...you have characters, action, suspense, threat, all produced by the description. As a reader I felt as if I were *in* that possible trap, that fold of ground closing in. Sanderson does finally mention the potential of "patrols" that sometimes kill the inquisitive...but (in that single paragraph) I had no feeling of impending danger...I was in a room or tent getting a briefing from someone speaking about a place where danger might come, but I wasn't experiencing the place. It was still abstract, not concrete. Since I prefer immersive fiction--like to fall into a story and come out the other end disheveled and surprised to be still an ordinary person in an ordinary house only it's hours or days later--I prefer Tolkein to Sanderson in this instance. Tolkein's description works for me because it sucked me in emotionally, not just factually. As a writer, that's the kind of story I like to write. Even in detective fiction (which is another of my favorite genres though I don't write in it) , l like best the writers who quickly engage me in the world of the story, descriptions that convey the effect of the setting on the characters. Not so much whether it's fancy or plain, Germanic or Latinate, but whether it connects to mind, heart, and soul...and how it does that is more than sentence length, word origin, or anything easily measured. In fantasy, the descriptions in Keith Roberts' PAVANE and Alan Garner's THE OWL SERVICE--and in more mainstream, Daphne du Maurier's in REBECCA and THE KING'S GENERAL are worth looking at.

Very interesting. I miss a thorough discussion of why these metrics were chosen. Also, at 6:49 I don't see how 44 + 18 adds up to 64. But that is of lesser importance. (5 /34 = 15 % latin origin words here.)

I think something that stood out to be when you were reading BrandSand was the telling not showing nature of that paragraph which is a common criticism of BrandSand

This type of video is exactly what I've been looking for! Are there any similar resources on the topic of prose style/analysis?

Great video!! I really loved it! I am Spanish but I have read Rothfuss' books in English because I am a huge fan of his prose

Interesting video! While I have an intuitive sense of what prose I enjoy, my subconscious mind might be measuring several factors such as what you described in this video. I wish you had shown the Rothfuss and Erikson passages you selected. I’m currently reading Malazan Book of the Fallen and love Erikson’s writing style!

What gets me to STOP reading a book is when they have too many characters with similar sounding names, have characters with difficult to pronounce names, have too many characters with a similar appearance, or just have too many characters introduced in a short time. I just started reading a new book yesterday and there were 9 characters introduced in the first chapter. Seriously? Even something like ST TNG only has 8 main characters most of the time and that is after having an entire TV series and movies so people are already very familiar with each character going in to any books. Reading a new book with no previously established characters and introducing 9 + in the first chapter seems like bad writing to me. (I won't name the book because I don't want to run down a specific author).

Brilliant video! First time viewer here, and the inclusion of the Germanic/Latinate ratio got me to subscribe. Simply superb.

This was really enlightening. I just finished Soule's Light of the Jedi and while I the plot and world-building were good, I found the prose wanting. le Guin's prose is utterly brilliant - check her out!

is there a tool for doing this kind of analysis on my own stuff? particularly Intrigued by the Germanic Latinate thing

Spot on with Erickson

I wish that had been the average for Sanderson's prose. Where are the punctuation "unorthodoxies"? He totally YOLOs when using commas, periods and paragraph breaks. I was hoping this video would mention that. I feel so alone in this world. lol... I'm like an old man yelling "get off my lawn." I'm actually fine with his level of description, which IMO toes the line of too little but is still fine. It's his punctuation that tilts me. I couldn't bring myself to read the second book of The Stormlight Archive, even though I greatly enjoyed the plot and world of The Way of Kings.

As an uneducated nobody, this flew right over my head. But it was still interesting for some reason. I love Sandersons books and for me the writing just feels “normal”, for lack of a better word. I do notice a different feel when I read other authors though, but I can’t really put my finger on what it is. The most difference might be between Sanderson and Douglas Adams. But for all I know, it’s just that Adams’s books have way more silly stuff in them.

Yes, too much latin reminds me of science text books, especially if the author uses short sentences often. There's a weird trend to emulate Hemingway because he was a rebel, but I don't care for newspaper like writing, which is ironic to me since I loved George Stanley 's search for Dr. Livingston.

It's not where the words came from that makes Sanderson so bad. It's what he does with them. Look at your example passages. Tolkien's adjective laden description expresses the characters' impressions and experience of their surroundings. Sanderson's narration, on the other hand, is an omniscient info-dump. He's not so much telling a story as telling us *_about_* a story. Also, good story tellers illuminate characters through interactions, while Sanderson resorts to internal monologues instead. When his characters do speak, they tend to spit out character notes. "He's the kind of guy who ..." "You're changing." "She would never ..." "He's a good man."

I'm coming late to this video, but just wanted to say I enjoyed the analysis. It's not often I see things like this discussed. However, I was disappointed that the paragraphs you analyzed in Rothfuss, Jemison, and Erickson were not read or even shown on the screen. Is this clipped from a longer video where they are read?

As someone who's listened to all of these books only, I've found myself liking Sanderson's more. I think it's something to do with the adjectives like I had a hard time conceptualizing wtf was going on in that LOTR passage. Also maybe why I liked the WOT because he would describe shit over and over and over again lol.

Fascinating video! The comparisons were interesting. I’d love to see more in depth analysis with some other authors added in. Great work, as always!

Hold up, you’re saying Rothfus puts out books? I thought it was Rothfus put out books. While Sanderson puts out books.

This is very interesting. I love Brandon Sandersons style of writing. I honestly don't like flowery writing. I read books for the plot and I feel like "beautiful" writing distracts me from what's happening. I don't read books to be wowed by the language. I also have a short attention span so I want the author to get straight to the point in order to hold my attention. Ive tried both a Rothfuss book and an Erickson book and I couldn't make it past the first few chapters. Judging from this graph I should probably try a Jemisin book. Also, yes I'd love to see more videos like this.

Very very interesting. I find Erickson to be very poetic, but like this showed, not quite to Tolkien or rothfuss' level. He is MUCH more poetic than Sanderson, though. This goes to show that sometimes written word is more than the sum of it's parts :) great video!!!

First off, Erikson is an absolute genius. No wasted words. Ability to write in any style or tone. Skillful use of repetition and variety. Fine control over narrative voice, psychic distance, etc. The ability to layer in multiple meanings. It's an embarrassment of riches how good the Malazan Book of the Fallen is. Anyone who is serious about fantasy but never read him should. He's that freaking good.

I'm definitely someone who reads for language and not mostly for plot. And I think I like both (extreme) ends of the spectrum the most. Super descriptive prose with unnecessarily long sentences, as well as very choppy and broken down prose. I love Cormac McCarthy for example and I've read all of Donna Tartt's novels even though only one of them had a plot and characters I even found remotely likable or intersting. So I think the one thing I can definitely say I find no pleasure in is "simple" prose.

Authors/Writers with the best prose: James Joyce, Franz Kafka, Lawrence Durrell, Hans Henny Jahnn, Nabokov, Marguerite Yourcenar, Hermann Hesse, Robert Walser, John Cowper Powys, Alfred Doblin, Gustave Flaubert, Proust, Gene Wolfe, Andre Gide.

Now do Gene Wolfe…

Now that you've read 2 paragraphs from Gardens.... >_> In all seriousness... I'm curious to see what I think of Jemisin's writing. She's the only author out of this bunch I haven't tried.

This makes more sense as Tolkien is my center for evaluation of prose in fantasy. It also makes sense why I can't stand Sanderson but really appreciate Rothfuss.

Tolkien is my favorite; so, I like longer sentences, a higher number of adjective/adverbs, and fewer Latinate words. It would be interesting to see how these numbers compare to some non-fantasy great writers (like Dickens, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, Austen, etc.).

You should've given more samples in your reading. The glaring difference between Tolkien and Sanderson was Tolkien was plodding and methodical about the visceral experience of the surroundings, and Sanderson was a poignant synopsis of actions from an eagle eye perspective. So, the comparisons weren't apples to apples.

I've been trying to grasp what a prose meant for some months now, and i feel that you gave me a big piece. Thank you dude.

You don't feel like your metrics are a tad bit arbitrary? Not even a little? Because A. Accessibility is arguably just as important, and B. Why does it matter what the root origin of a word is? It's all English at the end of the day. And besides that fact, a work having more Germanic words vs. Latin arguably makes it less pleasant to read, given that Romance languages are considered overall more beautiful and poetic to most audiences vs. Germanic languages which are seen as harsh and stilted.