Talk:Warbreaker

Article Class

Changed the class from stub to C. There's a complete infobox, several of the template sections, and a variety of citations.Tbennert (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC) <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ebooksr.com/">Free PDF Ebooks Downloads</a>

Notability

This book may be more notable due to the way it was created and edited online in the public eye, than for the story itself.

Card's Review

Why is Card's opinion so important as to take up most of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.62.89.27 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not. It is only taking up so much of the article because the article is so very small. If it concerns you so much, your best bet would be to improve the article by adding to it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Originality of Magic System

The originality of this novel's magic system seems to have come slightly under debate judging from the editing history.

First of all, I have no desire for personal opinions to be stated in the article, and I lack an opinion on the matter in any case. However, if a reader has some evidence of an actual debate on this topic or would like to compare and contrast this magic system with those of other specific existing systems, I don't think that would be an inappropriate addition to the article.

I have removed a "weasel words" phrase from the article making a claim that "it could be debated" that this system is essentially a rehash of an existing one(s), for the simple fact that it doesn't appear to fit guidelines and isn't particularly helpful since it doesn't back up this claim with actual information. "Anything" could be debated, but that doesn't mean it is being debated. Expound on this claim, or make the comparison in the article yourself! As a fantasy reader, I think this is worth mentioning. I just didn't like the editor's choice of words.

I do think a compare/contrast section might be relevant to the article, if a reader is convinced that this (alleged) fact is worth mentioning in the article. Thoughts?

--Isfppoet (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As an avid reader of fantasy, I believe the distinctiveness of this system seems to come from its break from magical systems found in real-world examples (for instance medieval alchemy, Indian mysticism or the miracles of the Jewish prophets) or from the traditional fantasy examples (e.g. the magic of Tolkien or Dungeons and Dragons). Sanderson seems to pride himself on complex, made-from-scratch magical systems with unique twists (in this case, it's link to color).Aebrynis (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Changing/Adding To/Revising Article

I am semi-new, but in any case as a fan of this work and Sanderson's works in general, I shall do my best to make the page better over the weekend, probably by adding "Characters", adding to Themes and generally revising/adding more info to existing things. No, I'm not going to remove stuff (unless it's fluff or implied fairly explicitly by other sentences) although I may rephrase it better (shorter, prettier, etc.) If you have anything to add/advice, please email me at S.Reavis.P@gmail.com, I'm not entirely sure this is legal, or if I did anything bad, if I did, please email me reccomended/performed changes, send notices about what I did wrong, and general helpful stuff.