Jake (don't skip Liveship) Bishop

Jamal Murray flopping all over the place in the 1st quarter. Underrated flopper. Not quite on the level of SGA. But Murray loves to flail around.

Sanderson is genuinely one of the worst writers in fantasy and the fact that he thinks he can dismiss GRRM's work because of "his Mormon faith" is just wild.

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?