Book Review - Mistborn Trilogy By Brandon Sanderson

 Book Review - Mistborn Trilogy 

By Brandon Sanderson

What Brandon Sanderson did with the ending of The Wheel of Time is indeed commendable. That and the massive amount of hype that comes with his name is the reason I picked up the series. Pretty much any of the Fantasy reader/influencer on Youtube lists Sanderson in their top 5 or 10. 

My overall verdict for the series is 3 out of 5. It is a enjoyable one-time read that will fade away from memory. Nothing stands out except the magic system which is indeed where Sanderson thrives and one that he is proud of. 

The good part of Sanderson' books is that he establishes boundaries and rules for his magic system. Then he plays along with them, within them, and likes to use them with ingenuity. This is a reason why he was the apt choice to translate TWOT. Take the example of the space-warp circles that you can draw in the air that aids you to go from one place to another. In the Jordan era, the TWOT world changed after this was re-discovered and made folks travel from one place to another in no time. In the Sanderson era, he uses these circles as spy devices, drawing them 50 ft above the ground for folks to see what is going on below. When it comes the first time on pages, it is an aha moment and adds so much richness to the rule that was used hundreds of times before. 

Similarly, in Mistborn series, (spoilers ahead), Kandra have a rule that they cannot kill humans. But there is no rule for Kandra killing kandra. One would expect that rule will preclude Kandra killing other kandra,  but Sanderson enjoys these gaps and later exploits them. 

Sanderson's books are known for its world building. How does he do that? It is indeed based on layering. In the beginning, we learn about different metals, their properties and powers, pushing and pulling aspects. We come to know that this is Allomancy. Later on, we learn that there are other forms using the same metals and in fact that there are three - Allomanncy. Feruchemy and Hemalurgy. Sanderson weaves each form in his stories/characters. Later, in book three, we get to know that Allomancy is from Preservation and Hemalurgy is from Ruin. Sanderson explores the role of Preservation and Ruin and how they balance each other out. 

A good rule of world building is that it should always add room to add scope at each layer and able to build more layer on top it. Sanderson does it effectively. He can expand horizontally - example -  add more metals (layer 1), add more techniques (layer 2) or expand verticals - where does Preservation or Ruin come from.  Sanderson is master of this craft and it shows in the text. 

Compare this to the world building of Harry Potter. I have been thinking of which books did I enjoy more - Harry Potter series or Sanderson. Internet says that kids enjoy HP while adults enjoy Mistborn. I am not sure. I feel that Rowling's world building is definitely magical but lacks rules. There could be a spell for anything, it is vague, vast and also lacks a grounded basis. Such limitlessness results in author-convenience, you can create a way out by inventing a new spell. 

However, in contrast I found the characters to be more relatable in HP series than Mistborn. In general, I like books where there is a sense of purpose and people coming together to do something magical. It is easy to create a sense of purpose, for all fantasy books are basically a re-telling of good vs bad. But people coming together, relying on each other to achieve the end goal, overcoming what they thought they could achieve, against all odds is what makes the journey satisfying. See, LOTR, it is the fellowship that establishes the bond. In HP, it is the batchmates of Hogwarts class where friendships are made. 

My biggest gripe with TWOT is that the camaraderie does not shine, seems forced and folks are often jealous or arguing with each other. It is not that bad in mistborn though. Book one is by far my favorite of the three precisely because of this reason. The characters and their fellowship shines the most in book 1. In book two and three, it dilutes down. 

The second trope that I do not like at all is when characters get power without deserving them. Sure, they may be born with it but their process of discovery is important. In TWOT, I could never associate with Matt. In Mistborn, the protagonist, Vin's self discovery is palatable but Elend - I could still see his path to get to become the king (done actually well with Tindwyl)  but for him to become Allomancer is just cheating in my mind. I love the fact that in the land of magic, how people without magic can not only survive but also lead (think - Aragorn, Frodo, Varys), it makes them more powerful. Sanderson throws away that edge in book 3 and I had a hard time enjoying book 3 for this very reason. 

Character arcs - Other aspect of fantasy books is how character arcs shape up, not just the protagonist but the side characters too. The Spook arc in book 3 is well done and satisfying. Vin and Sazed shine in parts but not everytime. This is where I think Sanderson's books are biased towards world building than character arcs. Sazed love interest turned grief mode seems unconvincing since the book shows him in love only for 2 months in his god knows how long life. Sanderson avoids the hero-savior trope by balancing Vin's page-time but he also does not enough meat in it. 

No review of Mistborn is done without Kelseir - the hero of book 1, the spirit of the trilogy and perhaps the best character of the entire series. Book 1 is practically a heist plot, a heist against the God (literally) and Kelseir is the plotter. It is a david vs goliath trope, fellowship trope, new hero discovery and training trope, revenge trope, good vs evil trope in which few good people will die,  it is everything that you would expect from a good fantasy book.  Kelseir is the Tyrion of GoT - a character that everyone falls in love with.  

The other premise that is really good with Mistborn is the class struggle - the Skaa(workers) vs the nobles. Mistborn world is actually pretty dystopian but Sanderson tones it down. The brutality by the nobles, the helplessness of the Skaa, are really good subjects and Sanderson engages with both of them. But, I feel tha they could have been explored more deeply. But, the fact that Sanderson brought them to the forefront and had chose such a setting is indeed commendable. 

Book1 - The Final Empire - 3.5/5

Book 2 - The Well of Ascension - 2.5/5

Book 3 - The Hero of Ages - 3/5

The reason I got the HP comparison is because I felt the writing styles of Rowling and Sanderson are similar. The prose is okay-ish, easy to follow up but does not stand out. Words exist to create the worlds, push the plot along and for the narration to happen. But the wordsmith-ness is not there. Some books have a beauty when you read them. Like Neil Gaiman, Ursula Le Guin for me.  Mistborn is not of that genre. 

Read Mistborn for its world building and it is a great introduction to fantasy, similar to HP series but in a more real world setting.