I haven’t read a lot of Sanderson, but I’ve read enough to sense that this difference is in true personal disposition.
Sanderson’s drive seems to be more of wonder, curiosity and adventure, and the stories delve into morality and justice as a source of plot tension.
In contrast, I think OSC has always been more of a black-and-white thinker. I think his best stories have been ones where he is exploring a moral struggle or thought experiment. But at the end of the story, you can pull out what OSC has concluded morally about those characters - who is good, who is bad (and always has been), and maybe who is a necessary evil.
All of OSC’s stories are about categorizing people, behaviors and decisions into ‘should/should not’ buckets. And I’ve just never gotten that sense from Sanderson’s books.
I haven’t read a lot of Sanderson, but I’ve read enough to sense that this difference is in true personal disposition.
Sanderson’s drive seems to be more of wonder, curiosity and adventure, and the stories delve into morality and justice as a source of plot tension.
In contrast, I think OSC has always been more of a black-and-white thinker. I think his best stories have been ones where he is exploring a moral struggle or thought experiment. But at the end of the story, you can pull out what OSC has concluded morally about those characters - who is good, who is bad (and always has been), and maybe who is a necessary evil.
All of OSC’s stories are about categorizing people, behaviors and decisions into ‘should/should not’ buckets. And I’ve just never gotten that sense from Sanderson’s books.
This is a really good analysis. Thank you!