|
anathenema posted:But it wasn't a sappy, happy ending by any means. Abercrombie understands at least how to hit tragedy, futility and "adult" themes without killing everyone off. Killing characters is pretty much the cheapest way to tug on emotion. Good writers can pull strings in their readers without killing characters, so when characters do actually die the response is much greater. Contrast Abercrombie to, say, JK Rowling, who attempted to garner emotion by killing off a minor character a chapter in the later Harry Potter books, to the point where it was ho-hum and expected.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
I can see Kvothe being an unreliable narrator working if there was enough information to piece it together as a mystery (either because of internal inconsistencies in his story or external information about what really happened), or if he was a compelling enough character that it would be interesting to explore his delusions. I'm not smart enough to see clues and I don't like Kvothe as a character, so whether it's Rothfuss telling us about how totally awesome Kvothe is or Kvothe making up stories about how totally awesome he is makes no difference for me. My guess is that in the conclusion Kvothe remembers how he's the greatest ever and taking advantage of his gifts because that's how things have worked in the past. Kvothe was poor and living on the streets until he remembered he was a gifted wizard and decided to go to school; Kvothe was unable to pay tuition intil he remembered he was a gifted violinist and decided to go across the river to win a music contest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
I think the general consensus is that the third book could redeem the series, but it's unlikely. Compare it to something like Book of the New Sun, where the fourth book could literally have been the words "herp derp" 25,000 times and it still would have been a great series. I hope Rothfuss publishes something after the Kingkiller trilogy that shows more maturity but equally as pleasing prose. Seems more likely than a redemptive third book.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
Idle Speculation: Bast is Kvothe & Ferulian's kid. Time passes differently in that realm. Bast grows up hearing all about how super-awesome Dad is. One day he heads out to finally meet him (and remind him that Mom's waiting for him to come home) and it turns out Dad's a dusty Innkeeper in some forgotten backwater. For some reason, Bast's actions strike me more as idol worship and less as "we adventured together and forged a master/student relationship."
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 14:55
|
|
|
Dershiva posted:Idle Speculation: Bast is Kvothe & Ferulian's kid. I'm not sure if he's Kvothe's, but he's related to Felurian. I don't have my books in front of me, but I'm almost entirely certain that Bast's full name included Prince of Twilight. In WMF, Felurian is referred to as the Lady of Twilight. I have a feeling Bast was sent to make Kvothe fulfill his promise to come back and got caught up in the story of Kvothe and would rather stay with him than force him to go back and lose him to Felurian.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 16:48
|
|
|
Dear Rothfuss, While it may be true that you are a for real author who's had a decent bout of success and I'm only a poster on an internet forum, I have some ideas and they are good ones, trust me. You need to rewrite your books. This time, make the background framing story relevant and interesting instead of just giving vague hints constantly. Stop being a creepy weirdo about sex and relationships. Add other interesting and detailed characters besides Kvothe, and you need to stop worshiping your main character. I will buy them all and read them again I promise. I just.. I just want these books to be better. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
Hm, it's interesting that you mention the characters as things for improvement. I actually think the characters are pretty interesting (and detailed), and the problems with some of them (Denna, Ambrose) are more offshoots of the other problems (his creepiness about sex and his all-Kvothe viewpoint, respectively) rather than with the characters themselves. I liked the Adem guy, and his University buddies, and Elodin, and Auri. I liked the creepy guy who played chess and the nice but not too nice rich guy. I really liked his original teacher that I can't remember his name, and the flashes we saw of his troupe. It didn't really bother me that they weren't as detailed, either, since this is the story of Kvothe and they flit in and out of his life as necessary. I still have a pretty strong sense of who they all are (and they are all relatively distinct). Other than that I agree with your complaints.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 21:18
|
|
|
They're just a tad too black and white for my taste, but I don't think they're bad or anything. I just feel like I could easily predict what each of them would do in a given situation and too many characters like that can make narratives involving them kind of dull and predictable. If you have to ponder and guess how a character would act, then it's either a vague or inconsistently written character which are bad things, or it's a complex character with many facets that affect how they behave, much like humans in real life. For a comparison, I have to really think to be able to guess how most characters in Game of Thrones would act and all the debate about character motivations we see in that TVIV thread testifies to GRRM's ability to make very deep characters. Notice that we don't see a lot of that in this thread, the discussions kind of revolve around the mysteries that the author has force-fed us. Not that there's anything wrong with it, mystery is a powerful plot device. Just a comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 21:50
|
|
|
I understand what you're saying, and I'm definitely not trying to make a comparison in quality here between GRRM and Rothfuss, but I think Game of Thrones' characterization isn't a great comparison to this story because their structures are so disparate. They're both in the fantasy genre, but GRRM is telling a political thriller (essentially) which switches viewpoints into different people's heads frequently while Rothfuss is doing more of a Tolkein-style hero quest told from mostly one viewpoint. The former is much more driven by character action than the latter, which by necessity creates a richer "stable" of character motivations. We have to be able to understand and discuss potential actions of characters and where that might take the story because that is the essence of a thriller, and the characters are the entire driver of the story. The latter is about the journey, and Rothfuss is certainly taking us on one that's interesting enough for us to be talking about it. I mean, I wouldn't say that the characters in Lord of the Rings are particularly nuanced (even taking time period into account) beyond maybe Gollum, but they don't have to be. They just have to do their job to advance the quest, similar to Kvothe's people. The things that happen to them may be poignant and memorable, but ultimately they have little agency in where the plot takes them. A better comparison would probably be The Dark Tower, which is a hero quest with very rich characters, but Stephen King is a very talented character writer who also switches viewpoints between characters to add depth. Rothfuss may have made a mistake by limiting himself to only having Kvothe tell the story, of course, but I think that within his structure he's done a good job of making the characters alive, if not the chief driver of the story. Basically, I wouldn't put characters on my list of complaints. That was a lot of words about that, sorry! Sophia fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Jul 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
I think characters in any medium should be complex. I guess I can concede this as a matter of taste, though I can't really think of a way that storytelling benefits from simple characters. The characters might do their job of progressing the story, but it could be done better with better characters. I don't really make excuse for subgenre distinction, or even genre distinction for that matter. Literature is literature is the ways I sees it. I also think that Rothfuss work easily rivals GRRM's in many other areas. The actual act of reading the simple, child-like sentences that GRRM puts together is a real chore that I only endure for the characters and the plot. It's like a drat history textbook. In NoTW/WMF, I honestly don't care at all about 90% of the characters and the plot is only interesting because I want to know the solutions to all the mysteries Rothfuss has developed, the four paneled door and Master Ash and what happened to Kvothe and all that. I could take it or leave it for its own sake, but the writing is just so flowing and well structured that I really enjoy just reading it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
GRRM and Rothfuss in Comparison: An Exhaustive StudyRothfuss posted:I am not referring to the vigorous sweaty wrestling most men—and alas, most women—think of as love. GRRM posted:His manhood glistened wetly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
^^^^ Hahaha. I do agree with on GRRM - he's got a great story tied up in bad writing, while Rothfuss has a story of indeterminate quality (though not looking too promising) tied up in good writing. Well, it's not so much that I'm saying they shouldn't be complex as that they don't need to be complex. I don't think that cardboard characters are good in any story, but I don't think the characters here fall into that group. It's true that most of them basically serve one function, or are one-note, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't made them into real people. But he doesn't need to make them all changeable, or unpredictable, for them to be good. They serve the purpose of the story that way much better than if he tried to make them all too deep and thus distracting. It's enough that we don't understand the motivations of a handful of characters like Denna, or the Chandrian, or Elodin. His university buddies and the people he meets in the Adem just need to help Kvothe on his way and then get out of the way of the quest story. And I think Rothfuss does enough with them that it doesn't feel like they're info-dump machines while not bogging down the story in detail. Ambrose is a good example of a bad character that is basically a cardboard cut-out, though as well as the teacher that hates Kvothe. They're villains without any real characterization beyond "we hate Kvothe", and that makes them lame and fake. Maybe those are the characters you were talking about, I don't know. I don't think I'm making an excuse for a subgenre, but saying that different types of stories require different types of characters. But like you said, it might just be a matter of taste!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 23:06
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:GRRM and Rothfuss in Comparison: An Exhaustive Study Rothfuss does write fantastic prose. Although, to be fair, you included three paragraphs from Rothfuss and one sentence from GRRM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
Benson Cunningham posted:I think the general consensus is that the third book could redeem the series, but it's unlikely. The third book needs to clear a lot of things up if it is going to redeem the series. There are so many plot points that haven't been advanced at all. Specifically, the Chandrian. We know the real names, we know why Kvothe's father was killed, and we know that they have something vaguely to do with the tl;dr I agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 02:14
|
|
|
Huh, I guess I'm one of the few who wasn't particularly impressed by Rothfuss' prose, as I felt it varied between 'good' and 'pretentious.'
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 06:20
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Huh, I guess I'm one of the few who wasn't particularly impressed by Rothfuss' prose, as I felt it varied between 'good' and 'pretentious.' Great prose is Cormack McCarthy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 15:21
|
|
|
Mahlertov Cocktail posted:Rothfuss does write fantastic prose. Although, to be fair, you included three paragraphs from Rothfuss and one sentence from GRRM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 15:28
|
|
|
Wait are you guys joking or do you actually think that's fantastic prose? VVV Sorry, I know, I meant the other people saying that they think he's a great writer. "Sometimes my mind is so clean and sharp I have to be careful not to cut myself." Ostiosis fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Jul 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
 It was a joke, I posted two sexually awkward excerpts that also demonstrated some differences in writing style but my greater point was that fantasy writers are creepy nerds.This is fantastic prose: quote:The dust the party raised was quickly dispersed and lost in the immensity of that landscape and there was no dust other for the pale sutler who pursued them drives unseen and his lean horse and his lean cart leave no track upon such ground or any ground. By a thousand fires in the iron blue dusk he keeps his commissary and he's a wry and grinning tradesman good to follow every campaign or hound men from their holes in just those whited regions where they've gone to hide from God.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
Rothfuss isn't Faulkner but I think he is quite a good writer. A better writer than plotter, really. He just needs a better editor to reign him in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
Yes, a good editor would do wonders for Rothfuss. I hope he's not too conceited to seek out one that will tell him when his stuff sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:Yes, a good editor would do wonders for Rothfuss. I hope he's not too conceited to seek out one that will tell him when his stuff sucks. Evidence to the contrary not withstanding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 02:43
|
|
|
Benson Cunningham posted:Evidence to the contrary not withstanding. He put up a post on his blog saying his editor let him put everything he wanted in the second book (up to the longest book physically able to be published). His first book didn't have creepy sex (his editor told him whats what because he was unpublished). This seems to be evidence that supports the idea that he listens to his editor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 11:45
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:He put up a post on his blog saying his editor let him put everything he wanted in the second book (up to the longest book physically able to be published). His first book didn't have creepy sex (his editor told him whats what because he was unpublished). This seems to be evidence that supports the idea that he listens to his editor. Not really. It shows that before he had made it he would sell his soul to get a book published, and now that he's published he will write however he drat well wants as long as it can still physically be bound as a book.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
WeWereSchizo posted:The thing is, it's been two solid books of nerd-wank self-insertion fantasy. Whats's wrong with nerd-wank self-insertion fantasy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:
Its all subjective. I think Cormac is a crappy writer of prose, and he alienates the average reader by his lack of punctuation and bizzaro sentence structures. He might have something profound to say, but he's the literary equivalent of Nostradamus. Fling enough crap and some of it will ring true. Rothfuss's big problem is that he thinks his writing is hot stuff, and is particularly proud of phrases like "cut-flower sound of a man waiting to die." His go to opener about the types of silence was alright, but not worthy of any back patting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 05:20
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:I think Cormac is a crappy writer of prose,
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 05:43
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:Its all subjective. I think Cormac is a crappy writer of prose, and he alienates the average reader by his lack of punctuation and bizzaro sentence structures. He might have something profound to say, but he's the literary equivalent of Nostradamus. Fling enough crap and some of it will ring true. Rothfuss's big problem is that he thinks his writing is hot stuff, and is particularly proud of phrases like "cut-flower sound of a man waiting to die." His go to opener about the types of silence was alright, but not worthy of any back patting. The fifth silence, the silence within the silence that only those silent enough to hear, was a silence of death.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 12:46
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:Sorry, saying something like this invalidates all opines on literature you have. Saying you don't like or enjoy his style is one thing, but it's Objective Fact that Cormack demonstrates a powerful mastery of language. Nothing about art is ever objective. College literature professors might tell you otherwise, but there is value to be found in anything ever written if it makes a connection with a reader. Cormack feels too pretentious for me to enjoy. I never said he wasn't a brilliant writer, because he's obvious made an impact on you and others. I, however, gag at his rambling comma free slapdash gumbo of cool sounding words. I also dislike beat poetry, Lady Gaga, and people who think art is objective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:Sorry, saying something like this invalidates all opines on literature you have. Saying you don't like or enjoy his style is one thing, but it's Objective Fact that Cormack demonstrates a powerful mastery of language. Language maybe, punctuation maybe not. To me, all writers have "voices," and Cormack's "voice" has always struck me as the literary equivalent of Stephen Hawking. Great content, great word choice, but it's all just one tone and it all just runs together without a particular cadence. I'm sure it'd be different if he were to read it aloud, but on paper - well, let's just say there are times where I'm not even sure why he uses periods.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:Nothing about art is ever objective. College literature professors might tell you otherwise, but there is value to be found in anything ever written if it makes a connection with a reader. Cormack feels too pretentious for me to enjoy. I never said he wasn't a brilliant writer, because he's obvious made an impact on you and others. I, however, gag at his rambling comma free slapdash gumbo of cool sounding words. I also dislike beat poetry, Lady Gaga, and people who think art is objective. McCarthy is anything but pretentious with his prose, if you care for literature at all you might consider taking the time to read some more highly esteemed authors and then you'd see he's not really that out of place. Above Our Own fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jul 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 17:18
|
|
|
I have a theory about the disconnect between the good prose vs. a lot of other stuff being crappy. Rothfuss says that he wrote entire trilogy years ago, went back to it and realised the writing was lovely and essentially is largely re-writing the entire trilogy. So the reason the plot is so plodding, the characters so one-dimensional the goony views on sex and women and so on, is that he didn't realise those things were actually issues. So he's put a lot of work into the prose without addressing some pretty obvious flaws in the overall story. Basically much of this reads as "Things Patrick Went Through, Projected Into a Fantasy Setting". I mean come on, when someone, especially someone goony first has sex, they are convinced that THEY HAVE DISCOVERED SEX. And that's exactly what the sex fairy thing is all about. We're basically reading about "When Patrick Had Sex and He Was Awesome At It". The no money in University thing is "When Patrick Had no Money in College". The trip to the Adem is "When Patrick Started Doing Ka-ra-te". poo poo, there's probably an "Ambrose" out there who was "Patrick's Nemesis in College" who has no clue who Patrick Rothfuss was, until someone points out that he was that creepy, cape-wearing, bearded dude who was following the guy's girlfriend around. Tachykinin fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Jul 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:Nothing about art is ever objective. Anyone who says this is an idiot. Seriously "It's all subjective" is the refuge of people who know nothing about art and want to believe that everyone else is in the same boat. There are innumerable things about all the arts that can be objectively measured. Composition, for example. Or use of language. If you write a sonnet with 15 lines in it, well hey I might really like it subjectively. But objectively it's a lovely sonnet. What you like is irrelevant. Nobody cares, it has no value to anyone but you. You can dislike a thing and it's still gonna be art. You can love a thing and it's still gonna be Transformers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
No really lets have the argument about objective aesthetics again. I'm pretty sure we can solve it this time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
Hmm yes you're right some discussions involve advanced reasoning we better avoid all those and stick to the simplest and most agreeable things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
Evfedu posted:No really lets have the argument about objective aesthetics again. I'm pretty sure we can solve it this time. There's no need to solve it, it's solved. It's always been solved. How much you like something is not and has never been a measure of artistic merit
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:Nothing about art is ever objective. College literature professors might tell you otherwise, but there is value to be found in anything ever written if it makes a connection with a reader. Cormack feels too pretentious for me to enjoy. I never said he wasn't a brilliant writer, because he's obvious made an impact on you and others. I, however, gag at his rambling comma free slapdash gumbo of cool sounding words. I also dislike beat poetry, Lady Gaga, and people who think art is objective. Here is my fantasy novel: "argle blarge wubble wubble" I assert that this is a better fantasy novel than Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Who are you to tell me I'm wrong? Art is subjective. p.s. If it seems like we're unnecessarily re-treading old ground: aesthetic relativism in a forum dedicated to criticism and discussion of the arts needs to go the way of the Dodo. And if it keeps being advanced and accepted with a straight face, it apparently hasn't! Metonymy fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Jul 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 18:34
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:McCarthy is anything but pretentious with his prose
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 18:44
|
|
|
Liesmith posted:Anyone who says this is an idiot. Seriously "It's all subjective" is the refuge of people who know nothing about art and want to believe that everyone else is in the same boat. There are innumerable things about all the arts that can be objectively measured. Composition, for example. Or use of language. If you write a sonnet with 15 lines in it, well hey I might really like it subjectively. But objectively it's a lovely sonnet. But it's not a question of what is art and what isn't, and that's not the point that BananaNutkins was making. It's a question of what people like about art, and that is entirely subjective. I'm not a big fan of Picasso, but I love Dali. Impressionists are not really my thing, but most Baroque artists hit the spot. Etc... x3. Likewise you and I can differ on whether we prefer a Honda Civic or a Toyota Corolla based on certain things that are more appealing/important to each of us, but everyone can agree that they're definitely cars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:Cormack feels too pretentious Cormac McCarthy is basically the least pretentious dude. He gives no fucks about anyone else reading his poo poo. He writes the way he does because its how he best expresses himself, but he does not write with any consideration for how people should react to it, including college literature professors who love it. He doesn't care if anyone else thinks his books are great or important or well written or meaningful. You could write a book twice the length of Blood Meridian on why Blood Meridian is a masterpiece that altered your life and have it outsell the Bible and Cormac would never read the drat thing because literature isn't much of an interest for him these days. He probably doesn't reread his own work once it's published. The only book he seems concerned with these days is whatever he's currently working on. If that all seems like a lot of words for such a small piece of you're original post, it's because the over use of the word "pretentious" really gets on my nerves these days. It seems like it no longer means "the author wants you to think this is great when it's really poo poo" so much as it means "people who discuss literature on a more indepth level seem to like it so I'm going to hate". But you can hate Cormac McCarthy and defend genre fiction as high art all you want. I'm not being sarcastic with that last statement, there're arguments to be made that McCarthy is terrible and Rothfuss is a genius, though I doubt I'd find them convincing. Really when you start rambling on about objectivity and subjectivity the point that your reaching at is that you can argue any premise in artistic criticism, though some are going to be easier to support than others. Sprecherscrow fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jul 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 18:53
|
|