I, Mistborn- The Similarities Between Brandon Sanderson and Isaac Asimov

By the Ranting Critic

I've been doing a lot of comparisons on here lately, haven't I? I'll have a couple of book reviews out in the next couple of weeks, so don't get too sick of these.
I noticed many of these similarities about a year ago, when I found out about the connection between most of Sanderson's books through his Cosmere, which I'll explain later in this comparison.
The first big thing I noticed is the similarity in style. NOT necessarily genre, as Asimov held fantasy in contempt, but in their similar use of rules and laws in their novels. Take the Foundation series, for example. Hari Seldon's Psychohistory is a method of mathematically calculating future events based on the predictable actions of large groups of people. It can predict the future, but only to an extent. This form of science is used by the Foundation as an object of mystic religion, but in reality is governed by strict rules concerning the actions of mass groups rather than individuals, as many in the series think. Sanderson's Allomancy from the Mistborn trilogy is very similar in regard to it's structure and the people's reaction to its powers. The skaa, or ruling class, regards Allomancy as a mystic form of magic that allows people to magically fly through the air and become unnaturally strong, but like Asimov's Psychohistory is governed by a strict and concrete set of rules. Allomantic Steelpushing, which allows the Allomancers to fly through the air, requires an extensive knowledge of Trigonometry and trajectory. Feruchemy, which allows the user to store physical attributes such as strength in metals, requires the user to give up that attribute for as long as they store it.
These strict governing rules are also seen in Asimov's classic novel I, Robot. 
1. A robot may not harm a human being, or through inaction allow a human to come to harm
2. A robot must follow orders, except where this conflicts with the first law
3. A robot must protect its own existence, except where this conflicts with the First and Second Laws
These two series, Foundation and Robot, both have strict rules regarding the special abilities granted to them by the author. The same is likewise with all of Sanderson's novels. The term Sanderson uses in his essays concerning magic systems is "Hard Magic," meaning it has a very well-defined set of rules and consequences. The Sanderson magic system, when it was introduced in Elantris and The Mistborn Trilogy, was something very new to fantasy. Other authors like David Eddings had come close, but nothing close to what Sanderson did in those books.
Asimov likewise arguably did the same thing for science fiction. I, Robot and The Foundation Trilogy were both published around 1950, a time when Sci-fi had an almost fantasy feel, and when fantasy novels were very rare. Authors like H.G. Wells used science in The War of the Worlds or The Time Machine much like fantasy authors of the 70's, 80's, and 90's used magic. I think the reason for that is probably because science was just starting to advance rapidly but there wasn't enough that was already happening to really make science fiction out of. The reason it happened in fantasy is because J.R.R. Tolkien explained very little about the magic of Middle-Earth, and the subsequent authors just followed his example.
Asimov used these hard rules and governing laws to revolutionize the Science Fiction genre. It took a while, but it happened. I believe that Sanderson is going to revolutionize Fantasy in a similar way, if he hasn't already. His books are steadily growing in popularity among teenagers and adults alike.
The other big similarity between Sanderson and Asimov is the fact that their book series are interconnected. Asimov connected his Robot novels, his Foundation novels, his Galactic Empire novels, and his 1991 novel Nemesis by making all of them a part of a 20,000 year future history. Sanderson's method is true to the fantasy genre, but has a science fiction twist of its own. For those of you that didn't know, the Cosmere is the universe that The Mistborn Trilogy, Elantris, Warbreaker, and The Way of Kings are all a part of. There was a conflict at one point that split up the power of divine creation into sixteen shards that are all held by men that are revered as gods or destroyers on their world. In Mistborn its Ruin and Preservation. In The Way of Kings its The Almighty and Odium. This interconnection between novels is something that both authors use in their more popular books. 
These are the biggest changes I can think of. If I come up with any more I'll write a sequel essay for you guys covering this topic to a further degree.
And now I end my post and my rant. I'm terrible at conclusions, aren't I?

The Two Towers: Differences Between the Book and the Movie

Now, the differences between the book of The Fellowship of the Ring and the movie of it were more extensive then previously thought, but still pretty good for a film adaptation. The Two Towers is where things get nasty, consistency-wise.
One difference that isn't quite as important is that you didn't know about the whole orc attack and the death of Boromir at the end of the first book, but the first movie ended after Boromir's body is released on the River Anduin. Honestly, the first movie had a better ending than the first book did. Boromir's death was a WAY better place to let off then Frodo and Sam leaving just before that.
The film version of The Two Towers actually didn't have many inconsistencies for the first few minutes, at least not until they left for Helm's Deep. That's where the differences get nasty. Remember in the movie how everyone just packed up and left Edoras? In the book, Theoden left Eowyn in charge with a small company of Riders to protect those that stayed behind.  But that still isn't too bad. There's one huge difference in the sequence leading up to Helm's Deep that threw off the end of this movie and the first half of The Return of the King. And that was when Aragorn and his horse were dragged off the cliff by the Warg. That didn't happen in the book. They weren't even attacked on the way to Helm's Deep. If Peter Jackson had gone along with the book, he would have been able to end the second movie with Shelob's Lair like the book did. But at the same time, the sequence where Aragorn is dragged off the cliff and the dreams that follow create a lot of tension, both in fear for Aragorn's life and romantically. See, Tolkien's problem was that there wasn't any actual romance present in the Trilogy. Arwen just kind of popped in the third book and they got married. But this whole issue with Elrond wanting her to cross the sea and her being torn between Valinor and Aragorn creates a lot of tension that makes the movie a lot more exciting.
Remember the elves that come right before the Battle of Helm's Deep to help? In the book, the Rangers/Dunedain showed up. That's something I wished would have happened in the movie, because their coming to help shows the reader that Aragorn's kinsman care about each other, and they are in fact there to help people like they say.
Other than those three things, the differences are very small. The Fellowship scenes and the Sam/Frodo scenes are integrated instead of being separate like they were in the book, but that's an improvement. The differences in the Return of the King are honestly almost as great as the ones in this, especially when it comes to the ending. You'll see when I write the post for the differences between the book and film versions of The Return of the King.