What did he say? Reddit threads are hard to follow. Couldn't find it in there.
(Sanderson is a Reddit poster so these are replies to posts)
"Censor? Strange word to use, but perhaps appropriate here. I don't censor my own writing--I just write what I feel is right, and what fits. But if I were writing on this series, and didn't include it...hmm, yes perhaps that would be the right term.
But the point is moot, as 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.
Anyway, hope that helps. I get this question (or ones like it) enough that I thought I should give a more in-depth answer."
"I'll admit, I haven't read the entire ASOIF. I read the first book, and while I though the writing was excellent (I've enjoyed a lot of George's short fiction) I found the experience too much for me. It didn't feel realistic so much as, "Look how much I can build someone up before I destroy them." Which is an absolute art--it's using emotion in a very powerful and clever way. But I feel that he's often doing things to shock and surprise, precisely because they'd be too pessimistic for an ordinary fantasy series. (Indeed, his series feels like distinct reaction and contrast to the cozy fantasy stories of the eighties.)
That said, I realize that my friends who love ASOIAF point out that part of the strengths of the series is how he takes people you thought were irredeemable, and then makes you root for them--which does indeed have an optimism to it. And since I haven't read the entire series, I can't speak from a position of authority. Indeed, it may be too early to judge for any of us (as you point out) because we haven't seen where the journey takes the characters.
I'd say on your second point is a valid one. I considered talking more about magic out in my original post, but felt I'd gone too long already. I'd say it's not the divine nature of magic in mine, so much as the reliable, tool-based nature of the magic. In both, you can use it for good or for evil--but in George's books, he often takes a more classic "Wonder" style approach to magic. Meaning, you never know exactly what the ramifications of using it will be, and you can't ever truly control it. In a way, most magic in his books is akin to the One Ring, while my magic tends to be an unexplored science that--if understood--can indeed by used reliably. Strangely, in this, he's more Tolkien, and I'm more Asimov. (Though Asimov would likely hate a fantasy writer comparing themselves to him.)
Thanks for poking at me. You make some very interesting points."
"As I said, I read the first one, which is not uncommon for me. There are a TON of series where I read only the first, even if I like them. Because there are a lot of people writing great fiction, and I feel that it's important to keep tabs on what everyone is doing, so that I can learn from them. Recently, I read the first of the Expanse, and despite enjoying it a lot, I don't know when/if I'll have the time to get the second.
With Ice and Fire, I specifically found Daenerys's plot too brutal. I'm all for putting characters into terrible situations, and letting horrible things happen. But her plot crossed the line for me. I did not want to read a series where teenage girls have their brothers brutally murdered before them, are raped into submission, finally fall into a kind of stockholm syndrome love with their captor, then get betrayed for showing a little kindness. There's a kind of brilliance to the way that plot played out, but when I was done with it, I just felt sick.
It's not a value judgement for anyone else. I decided from that, however, that series was not for me. I've kept tabs on the plot and worldbuilding, however, because it would be foolish not to be aware of what the top of one's field is doing."