Sisyphos

Brandon Sanderson on why he would not finish George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones even if he was asked: "I wouldn't say yes to finishing ASOIAF, if asked. (And I don't think they'd ask me.) I'd respectfully decline. I wouldn't be right for the job for many reasons. I wouldn't want to put in the content that the series has, and part of that is due to my religious faith, part of it is just who I am. I don't shy away from difficult material, but I prefer not to get explicit. Honestly, when I read it in George's work, I often just cringe. I don't think it fits in prose; I think it looks tacky. But that's almost 100% due to the my religious leanings. I realize that others don't read such scenes in the same way as I do. However, I'd suggest that this is actually a minor reason why I'd be a bad writer on this series, despite having enormous respect for GRRM and his talent as a storyteller. The primary reason has to do with fundamental optimism vs pessimism. I write darkness into my books, but it is darkness as contrast to light, and there is always a spark of hope. George's work seems fundamentally pessimistic--which I don't say as a slam. One of my favorite short stories is Harrison Bergeron, which is also fundamentally pessimistic. Saying George's work is pessimistic doesn't mean that HE is pessimistic, only that he creates a work of art that evokes emotion and discussion through pessimistic themes. As a comparison, I'm glad that Silver Age science fiction produced both Harrison Bergeron and Star Trek--but I'm Star Trek, not Harrison Bergeron. Calling me in to work on this piece would be like calling in Spielberg to finish a Tarantino film. (Not to imply I deserve to be ranked with either one.) Sure, he could do it, but wouldn't you want someone who themselves makes films with Tarantino-like themes? My work is also fundamentally different from George's in our use of magic. We've talked about books, and he points out (rightly) that I often use a heavily magical component in my stories--particularly the endings. This is because I'm writing science/magic hybrids, and the idea of magic as progress is fascinating to me. George, however, prefers his magic to be arcane, unknown, and dark--not a tool, but a force you can sometimes (with great danger) apply. This is a small issue, as I'm fond of books that use magic differently, I've just made a stylistic choice in how I do what I do." Do you think this still holds?

Brandon Sanderson on why he would not finish George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones even if he was asked: "I wouldn't say yes to finishing ASOIAF, if asked. (And I don't think they'd ask me.) I'd respectfully decline. I wouldn't be right for the job for many reasons. I wouldn't want to put in the content that the series has, and part of that is due to my religious faith, part of it is just who I am. I don't shy away from difficult material, but I prefer not to get explicit. Honestly, when I read it in George's work, I often just cringe. I don't think it fits in prose; I think it looks tacky. But that's almost 100% due to the my religious leanings. I realize that others don't read such scenes in the same way as I do. However, I'd suggest that this is actually a minor reason why I'd be a bad writer on this series, despite having enormous respect for GRRM and his talent as a storyteller. The primary reason has to do with fundamental optimism vs pessimism. I write darkness into my books, but it is darkness as contrast to light, and there is always a spark of hope. George's work seems fundamentally pessimistic--which I don't say as a slam. One of my favorite short stories is Harrison Bergeron, which is also fundamentally pessimistic. Saying George's work is pessimistic doesn't mean that HE is pessimistic, only that he creates a work of art that evokes emotion and discussion through pessimistic themes. As a comparison, I'm glad that Silver Age science fiction produced both Harrison Bergeron and Star Trek--but I'm Star Trek, not Harrison Bergeron. Calling me in to work on this piece would be like calling in Spielberg to finish a Tarantino film. (Not to imply I deserve to be ranked with either one.) Sure, he could do it, but wouldn't you want someone who themselves makes films with Tarantino-like themes? My work is also fundamentally different from George's in our use of magic. We've talked about books, and he points out (rightly) that I often use a heavily magical component in my stories--particularly the endings. This is because I'm writing science/magic hybrids, and the idea of magic as progress is fascinating to me. George, however, prefers his magic to be arcane, unknown, and dark--not a tool, but a force you can sometimes (with great danger) apply. This is a small issue, as I'm fond of books that use magic differently, I've just made a stylistic choice in how I do what I do." Do you think this still holds?