|
anathenema posted:The thing is, he doesn't ever seem to be called on it. By anyone. There's no evidence to suggest that he's unreliable at all. When he hurts people, he makes it clear that they deserved it. Every character in the story lines up to nod and tell him how much they deserved it. Then we zoom out and the characters in the framing story tell us how much they deserved it. It definitely doesn't happen much, but it happens... Bast leaned forward, his face livid as he stabbed a finger at Kvothe. “I don’t care what other poo poo you spin into gold here! But you don’t lie about this, Reshi! Not to me!” Bast pointed at Chronicler. “I don’t give a fiddler’s gently caress what you tell him, Reshi. He’ll write what I say or I’ll eat his heart in the market square!” He turned the finger back to the innkeeper and shook it furiously. “But you’ll tell me the truth and you’ll tell me now!”
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
Above Our Own posted:Okay something I think you're missing when you put these "facts" forward as evidence is that the author contrived these situations. Ultimately the author is telling the story, not a character in his work, and the onus is on the author to let the reader know that we're receiving a skewed narrative. You can't quote in-universe reasons as a rebuttal to a meta criticism of the work. Well we are both giving our interpretations, and neither have many "facts." My interpretation is just that there's a completely reasonable -- even obvious -- answer to the question of why the framing story characters are nice to him: they both want something. And my interpretation is that the author lets you know you're getting a skewed story by having the main character -- a storyteller by trade -- tell you flat out that he'll embellish details or leave things out to make a better story. He lets you know by having only 1 character with an incredibly heavy bias tell you all the details. He lets you know by contrasting the past to the present. Above Our Own posted:This is a nuanced character that we like but not admire. Logan kills children. Glokta enjoys torturing. Jezal is an arrogant entitled idiot. West beats his sister. Ferro is a psychopath murderer. And those are the good guys. I don't want to argue about another book so let's just say I don't understand how this other book is relevant to self-insertion in NoTW.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
soru posted:Well we are both giving our interpretations, and neither have many "facts." My interpretation is just that there's a completely reasonable -- even obvious -- answer to the question of why the framing story characters are nice to him: they both want something. soru posted:And my interpretation is that the author lets you know you're getting a skewed story by having the main character -- a storyteller by trade -- tell you flat out that he'll embellish details or leave things out to make a better story. He lets you know by having only 1 character with an incredibly heavy bias tell you all the details. He lets you know by contrasting the past to the present. quote:Logan kills children. Glokta enjoys torturing. Jezal is an arrogant entitled idiot. West beats his sister. Ferro is a psychopath murderer. And those are the good guys. I don't want to argue about another book so let's just say I don't understand how this other book is relevant to self-insertion in NoTW.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:Uhhhh pretty sure the way he treats female characters and relationships in his Uhhhh no poo poo that's why I think at this point it's ceased to be real critical analysis and moved into the realm of confirmation bias. Everyone's already piled onto the "Rothfuss is awkward with women" bandwagon so naturally now anything that he says that involves women is definitely him being a creepy neckbeard instead of, oh, drawing an effective analogy using the shared experience of a childhood crush. Sophia posted:No, the analogy is gross no matter who says it. The concept of a matured or more polished version of something you'd idealized in your youth being disappointing is a good topic, and is definitely true and worthy of discussion. But the lack of awareness of the idealization when it comes to a living, breathing human being, especially a woman, is really awful and shows a problem with how someone thinks about women in general. It's an ANALOGY. It's not supposed to be a treatise on the proper way to show respect to women, he's just illustrating how the new LOTR movies have taken something he secretly loved in his childhood and turned it into something that, while attractive in a more blatant fashion, is not the thing he fell in love with. I don't know if any of you have actually had a childhood crush, but they typically they evolve from a distance, based on your preconceptions of what the girl/boy must be like, rather than a deep understanding of the true nature of him/her. It's a better analogy than his car or high school football vs the NFL, because it's not talking about something "moving up into the big leagues," it's talking about something that he loved with all the innocence of childhood, something that he has memories of hiding beneath his blankets to read at night, something that he had to hide from his peers for fear of ridicule - then seeing, years later, his childhood love all grown up and divested of the very things that made him fall for it in the first place. I think you're all trying way too hard. Or rather, now that it's easy to just join the bandwagon, you're not trying hard enough. Danhenge posted:FYI There's a pretty good chance you're a misogynist and you don't even realize it, hth FYI There's a pretty good chance you're an idiot and you don't even realize it, hth. Look, I took one thing you said and made an entire character judgement off of it, too! keiran_helcyan posted:"I have known her longer, my smile said. True, you have been inside the circle of her arms, tasted her mouth, felt the warmth of her, and that is something I have never had. But there is a part of her that is only for me. You cannot touch it, no matter how hard you might try. And after she has left you I will still be here, making her laugh. My light shining in her. I will still be here long after she has forgotten your name." Great quote from a fictional character, there. isochronous fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Mar 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
isochronous posted:It's an ANALOGY. It's not supposed to be a treatise on the proper way to show respect to women, he's just illustrating how the new LOTR movies have taken something he secretly loved in his childhood and turned it into something that, while attractive in a more blatant fashion, is not the thing he fell in love with. It's an analogy that turns a person into an object and you seem to be OK with it, so yeah, I'm going to say my generalization was spot on and you're just uncomfortable with being called on it. I'd say sorry that you're uncomfortable, but I'm not really sorry, you should probably do a little of self examination. You might ask me, well, how else is he supposed to make the point. I'll answer that a) I'm not a writer, I don't know but b) if your point requires that your analogy turn women into objects, maybe your point isn't that goddamn important? isochronous posted:Great quote from a fictional character, there. Yeah no poo poo! Isn't it weird how his characters act like a Nice Guy and then he writes, in real life, like a Nice Guy!!?? You're right though I should probably stumble around blindly never connect anything to anything else because all facts exist in a vacuum Danhenge fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Mar 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:No stop, don't do the my opinion your opinion thing because it's sophomoric and stalemates discussion. You don't generally use an in-universe reason to justify what seems to be an authorial problem since the author can contrive scenarios to justify his character's actions, I don't know how to get that across any clearer. You're characterizing it as an authorial problem and I'm saying it's not. This discussion was a stalemate from the start, and unfortunately it is a matter of opinions since neither of us can read Rothfuss's mind. The only difference between us is that you want to argue more and think that whoever's the most condescending wins. Above Our Own posted:What you don't understand is how to present a powerful, interesting character without self inserting. Oh, okay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
For those of you who still think Kvothe is an unreliable narrator who is lying to embellish his story, just think about it for two seconds. There are already legends of this insane magical badass flying around and Kvothe is perfectly content to let people believe those legends; he halfway invented them. The only reason he decides to tell his story is because Chronicler aptly points out that this is his one chance to tell the real deal before he dies. And Kvothe does believe he's soon going to die. So why make poo poo up now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
soru posted:unfortunately it is a matter of opinions since neither of us can read Rothfuss's mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Off topic: I just realized this and I'm an idiot for being so slow, but.. this is the Cthaeh, isn't it? A lone tree in the middle of a field of long grass. “It does more than that, Reshi,” Bast said. “In our plays, if the Cthaeh’s tree is shown in the distance in the backdrop, you know the story is going to be the worst kind of tragedy. It’s put there so the audience knows what to expect. So they know everything will go terribly wrong in the end.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
Holy gently caress good eye. Now I'm wondering what kind of meaning there is to Kvothe's "the broken tree" epitaph.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:It's an analogy that turns a person into an object and you seem to be OK with it, so yeah, I'm going to say my generalization was spot on and you're just uncomfortable with being called on it. I'd say sorry that you're uncomfortable, but I'm not really sorry, you should probably do a little of self examination. Please explain to me how the woman in his analogy is being turned into an object. I think if anything, he's complaining about how the woman has been turned into an object by hollywood, instead of retaining her identity and individuality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
isochronous posted:It's an ANALOGY. It's not supposed to be a treatise on the proper way to show respect to women, he's just illustrating how the new LOTR movies have taken something he secretly loved in his childhood and turned it into something that, while attractive in a more blatant fashion, is not the thing he fell in love with. Okay so if his ANALOGY in the past had been like "It's sort of like when you used to have a slave cook and he would sing you songs and bake you apple pie and do what you wanted and say things like "Lawks a mercy" and it made you feel safe and comforted to have such a caretaker and then years later after he was freed you saw him on the street and he was like "gently caress you, you white oppressor". It's nice that they are free but it's lost the innocence of the former happy master-slave relationship. The reason you liked that person is now gone." would you think "yeah, that's an apt description for a lost childhood simplicity" or would you think "man this dude has a problem with black people not being subjugated to his whims and being real people instead"? Before you say "this is nothing like that!", it is exactly like that. The message of what he said is clearly "Boy, some women were a lot more fun when I believed they were all innocent virgin princesses inside, just like I believe this book is innocent." It's the only reason the analogy even fits the situation with The Hobbit. isochronous posted:divested of the very things that made him fall for it in the first place. Here's the crux, the "very things that made him fall for it in the first place" in his analogy were not ever real; he projected them onto some poor girl as if she was a doll her could play with, and seeing her "all grown up" has shown that his fantasy construct has a mind of her own and makes choices of her own that he did not imagine and that makes him mad. That lack of control over another person. "There was a girl that I made perfect in my mind and she did not stay perfect as I wanted!" If you don't see how that sort of thought process is entirely gross then I don't know what to tell you. You can say that sort of thing about a book, an inanimate object with no free will or agency. That someone would consider that situation analogous to a situation with a real person is yucky. That you think it's apt is also yucky.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
isochronous posted:Please explain to me how the woman in his analogy is being turned into an object. I think if anything, he's complaining about how the woman has been turned into an object by hollywood, instead of retaining her identity and individuality. Because the woman exists only in relationship to men's fantasies, duh
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:Because the woman exists only in relationship to men's fantasies, duh Yeah, basically, using a lot fewer words than I did. Edit: Though I guess I should say, since I never explicitly stated it, that I don't think fantasy in childhood is abnormal or anything. It's the fact that he's held it up as something to be proud of or nostalgic about instead of the immature response to the opposite sex that it is. It's like saying that you miss the days when you could just poo poo in your pants whenever because you still had a diaper. making GBS threads in a diaper is a normal thing for a kid but it's not something to be proud of or remember fondly as an adult. And I've never seen the covers of any of the books, that is a pretty cool detail. Not that it ever really seemed that this book was going to have a happy Disney ending... I really hope he show all of the steps that lead to such a terrible tragedy in the one book he has left though. 
Sophia fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Mar 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:Because the woman exists only in relationship to men's fantasies, duh I'm sorry, did he use a perspective in his writing?!?! Surely we must talk about all things from a non-personal global standpoint instead of referring to personal experiences! Sophia posted:Here's the crux, the "very things that made him fall for it in the first place" in his analogy were not ever real; he projected them onto some poor girl as if she was a doll her could play with, and seeing her "all grown up" has shown that his fantasy construct has a mind of her own and makes choices of her own that he did not imagine and that makes him mad. That lack of control over another person. "There was a girl that I made perfect in my mind and she did not stay perfect as I wanted!" Really? Where did you get that? Let's look at what he actually said. quote:You know that it’s going to be like? It’s going to be like wandering onto an internet porn site and seeing a video of a girl I had a crush on in high school. You probably knew someone like her. The smart girl. The shy girl. The one who wore glasses and was a little socially awkward. The one who screwed up the curve in chemistry so you got an A- instead of an A. quote:And yeah, you had some fantasies about her, because, again, you were 16. But they were fairly modest fantasies about making out in the back of a car. Maybe you’d get to second base. Maybe you could steal third if you were lucky. This, obviously, is conjecture, but christ, EVERYBODY has these kinds of thoughts and fantasies when they're young. Why is it so creepy for Rothfuss to refer to them? Just because he brings the concept of a typical male fantasy into the discussion doesn't mean that suddenly that's the woman's only reason for existence. And again, this is an analogy, which isn't really intended to convey any information outside of the specific comparison being made. You don't take an analogy between a dog and a horse that's meant to show that both have four legs and start complaining that it doesn't take into account a dog's carnivorous nature vs the horse's herbivorous nature and by the way you're obviously only interested in the dog as an object. quote:So you stroll onto this porn site, and there she is. Except now she’s wearing a thong and a black leather halter top. She’s wearing gently caress-me red lipstick and a lot of dark eye makeup. Her breasts are amazing now, proud and perfectly round. Now this can be taken in a couple of ways. I'm inferring from the language he's using here ("Someone's taught her," "in a performance designed to win ... academy awards,") that what the girl is doing is an act, and not her actual nature. She's doing it at the bidding of someone else, who has made her up to be as appealing as possible to as many people as possible, but for the people who fell in love with her for her true nature, and not for this act that she's putting on, it's actually less appealing because you knew her back before she had been objectified by someone with an agenda. I believe this is the correct interpretation because The Lord of the Rings did not make itself into a loving movie trilogy. The Hobbit isn't out there directing its own cinematic adaptation. He's making this comparison because there is someone who had influence over the way the movie was developed, and instead of sticking to the things that made the books so great in the first place, they went for flash and glitter and action. He's not angry that he didn't have control over the way the girl developed, he's sad to see her exploited by someone who didn't have an appreciation for what made all the nerds like her so much in the first place. isochronous fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Mar 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
soru posted:Off topic: I just realized this and I'm an idiot for being so slow, but.. this is the Cthaeh, isn't it? A lone tree in the middle of a field of long grass. I don't know, I thought Kvothe was naked with an enormous erection the entire time he was in Fairieland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
soru posted:Off topic: I just realized this and I'm an idiot for being so slow, but.. this is the Cthaeh, isn't it? A lone tree in the middle of a field of long grass. Yep, that's the Cthaeh. I know I keep pointing people to Jo Walton's reread: http://www.tor.com/features/series/patrick-rothfuss-reread But it's worth taking a look at. A couple of posts relevant to the Cthaeh: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/01/ro...s-on-the-ctheah http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/02/rothfuss-reread-the-wise-mans-fear-part-19-all-their-choices-will-be-the-wrong-ones
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
soru posted:Off topic: I just realized this and I'm an idiot for being so slow, but.. this is the Cthaeh, isn't it? A lone tree in the middle of a field of long grass. I always thought it would be thicker. Everyone knows the Cthaeh has mastered the Thousand Branch Technique and the Barky-Finish.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
Yo, Isochronous, respond to the first half of Sophia's post, don't cherrypick!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
Patrick Rothfuss definitely writes wanky self-insert nice guy fiction but if you aren't capable of accepting that fantasy stories identify and pander to basic human desires you should probably stop reading fiction. Superman - I had a dream about flying - I wish I could fly. Batman - What if I was rich - I wish I was rich! Kvothe - What if I was good at everything! I wish I was good at everything!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
frozenpeas posted:Superman - I had a dream about flying - I wish I could fly. Superman and Batman were both originally a.) for children and b.) frequently offensive by modern standards. I could compare Denna to the love interest in the Nolan films as well, but I'll try to resist. As far as this series goes, I'm waiting for the third book before I start making judgments. Biographical criticism can only take you so far.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 11:20
|
|
|
isochronous posted:Now this can be taken in a couple of ways. I'm inferring from the language he's using here ("Someone's taught her," "in a performance designed to win ... academy awards,") that what the girl is doing is an act, and not her actual nature. She's doing it at the bidding of someone else, who has made her up to be as appealing as possible to as many people as possible, but for the people who fell in love with her for her true nature, and not for this act that she's putting on, it's actually less appealing because you knew her back before she had been objectified by someone with an agenda. So when a girl acts nice and shy and dorky that is her "true nature" and when a girl acts sexual and provocative she is being controlled by someone else? Screw you. You're objectifying her either way. You don't get to decide for another person what their true nature is. Read up on the Madonna / whore complex and how it's been represented in Western culture and literature for over a thousand years, then tell me that Rothfuss' analogy doesn't feed directly into that bullshit. Tell me that Denna doesn't feed directly into that bullshit. You and he are the worst kind of modern man, cherishing innocence and purity and lack of experience to an absurd degree and thinking this is somehow the right way to think about women.  By the way, the people who really think that any girl's "true nature" is to be pure and innocent and free from wanton sexuality also have an agenda, and that agenda is almost worse. Edit: And I apologize to anyone else who's having to read this and already knows all of this stuff. Sophia fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Mar 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
Sophia posted:So when a girl acts nice and shy and dorky that is her "true nature" and when a girl acts sexual and provocative she is being controlled by someone else? Screw you. You're objectifying her either way. You don't get to decide for another person what their true nature is. Read up on the Madonna / whore complex and how it's been represented in Western culture and literature for over a thousand years, then tell me that Rothfuss' analogy doesn't feed directly into that bullshit. Tell me that Denna doesn't feed directly into that bullshit. You and he are the worst kind of modern man, cherishing innocence and purity and lack of experience to an absurd degree and thinking this is somehow the right way to think about women.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
That's a dumb question because we live in a patriarchal society that has oppressed and infantalized women for basically ever. It'd still be weird if it was the reverse but it wouldn't be feeding into thousands of years of men-owning-women objectification. Men have never really been valued for their virginity or condemned for promiscuity, there is no comparison.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 15:52
|
|
|
Dershiva posted:Let's forget Rothfuss a moment: If the analogy was about a girl who had a crush on/fantasies about a boy that later ran head on into the reality of said boy becoming a man in porn, would that still bother you? I guess, but I don't think that analogy would really apply because standard female fantasies of males don't involve the male being innocent but rather being dangerous. Porn star men would feed into that rather than defy it. It would be more likely that the analogy would be something like "It's like that guy who had a motorcycle and probably always knew where to get beer and weed showed up on a dating site as a clean-cut vegan stockbroker because the world forced him to conform. He's still attractive and probably has a lot of money but that sense of thrill is gone." which wouldn't really fit The Hobbit situation. But if there was a situation where it did apply (like maybe the gentrification of a beloved neighborhood?) it would also be a gross analogy. It's hard to compare the two ideas, though, because while men can certainly be objectified (usually regarding money and power instead of sex), men have been typically operating from the position of strength and privilege in society and thus have been able to drive cultural norms. Men are equally as likely to be driven by how other men see them as trying to cater to women, but women have always had to cater to men. Also, people rarely think of men, even porn star men or Wall Street brokers, as having been "created" by the pressures of an external group. They are understood to have their own agency. But look at how isochronous considers it so normal to make the comparison between people adapting a book to be a polished product and people adapting a woman to be a polished product. Sophia fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Mar 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
Sophia posted:So when a girl acts nice and shy and dorky that is her "true nature" and when a girl acts sexual and provocative she is being controlled by someone else? Screw you. You're objectifying her either way. You don't get to decide for another person what their true nature is. Read up on the Madonna / whore complex and how it's been represented in Western culture and literature for over a thousand years, then tell me that Rothfuss' analogy doesn't feed directly into that bullshit. Tell me that Denna doesn't feed directly into that bullshit. You and he are the worst kind of modern man, cherishing innocence and purity and lack of experience to an absurd degree and thinking this is somehow the right way to think about women. I never generalized anything about women in general. I know that women are free to be as prudish or as wanton as they want, and more power to them. My point, which you seem to be doing your best to ignore, is that the early bit in his story seems to imply that the author actually knew the girl well when she was in school, and in the later bit he seems to imply that he knows the girl is putting on an act. Ignore, for a moment, your predilection for immediately assuming that the man is projecting his beliefs onto this girl, and rather assume that since this girl is COMPLETELY IMAGINARY AND ONLY EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN ANALOGY that maybe the author is accurately describing her behavior. You must have been studiously ignoring the bit where you, the reader, are supposed to interpret the analogy in the way that the author intended. I believe that rather than doing that you're just hell bent on taking the maximum amount of offense from this, so you're interpreting it in the most offensive way possible. And I love how just because I'm saying "well now you can interpret it another way that isn't so offensive," all of a sudden I'm part of the male patriarchy who is dictating the proper role and behavior for women everywhere. *edit* out of line *edit* You can't look past your own perspective to see that understanding something doesn't mean you have to support it. You have fun being all prickly and humorless though, obviously it's working well for you. quote:They are understood to have their own agency. But look at how isochronous considers it so normal to make the comparison between people adapting a book to be a polished product and people adapting a woman to be a polished product. Look, I'm sorry if the way society treats women bothers you, because it bothers me too, but simply making reference to how women are objectified doesn't make someone a monster, it makes them observational. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
isochronous posted:You must have been studiously ignoring the bit where you, the reader, are supposed to interpret the analogy in the way that the author intended. I believe that rather than doing that you're just hell bent on taking the maximum amount of offense from this, so you're interpreting it in the most offensive way possible. You have fun being all prickly and humorless though, obviously it's working well for you. My point isn't just that the analogy is offensive (though it is), but the kind of person who would even consider making the analogy or find it to be appropriate is a person with a broken view of women. Calling someone who is offended by something "oversensitive" or "humorless" is a well-worn tactic of people who are having their privileged views challenged and will not work. You hold offensive views, even if you don't know it because you've never had to confront them before. Hopefully some day you will be able to acknowledge that and grow. Edit: And I guess that might come off as sanctimonious or something, but I really am sincere. You seem like a smart guy who just hasn't been fortunate enough to be in a space to really examine your societally-given views on the opposite sex. I do hope someday you can confront it. Sophia fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Mar 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:37
|
|
|
Dershiva posted:Let's forget Rothfuss a moment: If the analogy was about a girl who had a crush on/fantasies about a boy that later ran head on into the reality of said boy becoming a man in porn, would that still bother you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
isochronous posted:gently caress YOU, rear end in a top hat. You can't look past your own butthurt perspective
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
Sophia posted:My point isn't just that the analogy is offensive (though it is), but the kind of person who would even consider making the analogy or find it to be appropriate is a person with a broken view of women. Calling someone who is offended by something "oversensitive" or "humorless" is a well-worn tactic of people who are having their privileged views challenged and will not work. You hold offensive views, even if you don't know it because you've never had to confront them before. Hopefully some day you will be able to acknowledge that and grow. I'm sorry, but I don't think it has anything to do with a "broken view of women," it's more to do with a realistic view on how women are treated by society today. Do I know it's hosed up? Yeah, I do. But can I understand an analogy that makes use of that hosed up situation? Yeah, I can. And I honestly don't think it's furthering that view, though it's certainly not helping it, but the guy's a fiction author, not a sociologist. And while I know calling you "oversensitive" or "humorless" is a well-worn tactic of people who are having their privileged views challenged, it's also true in the context of this particular situation, because his blog post was a personal correspondence from an author of entertainment fiction. While you certainly wouldn't ever make jokes about a sensitive subject in an academic journal or in the newspaper, what would your reaction be if you were at a comedy show and someone got all offended about an edgy joke the comedian made? It's an entertainment piece, it's not obligated to be politically correct and sensitive to all demographics, so I can take it with a grain of salt and do my best to see things from the intended point of view, rather than ignoring it. isochronous fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Mar 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:You don't have to talk to people this way, are you loving thirteen? You may be right. I seem to remember reading Sophia saying that to me in one of her replies, though she's edited hers as much as I have mine, so I can't be sure now. That had been the only reason I included it in my response. If I was mistaken, I apologize. Edit: And honestly one of the things that pisses me off the most is Sophia's condescending attitude about how "I seem to be intelligent, so she hopes I'll have the chance for self-examination blah blah blah." Again, understanding something does not imply support of that thing. If you had ever met the woman I'm dating you'd know just how ludicrous it is to accuse me of having outdated views on women, or to not understand the patriarchal nature of society, or the thousands of external forces accosting women every day to conform to a certain stereotype and/or gender role. I am completely and totally aware of this. However, I also have the view that getting offended at everything that could be taken as offensive is EXHAUSTING and also tends to make other people not want to hang around you a lot, so I try to temper it with a good understanding of human nature, and the ability to forgive other people's shortcomings if I think they're trying to improve. But really, Sophia, I loved you more back when you were a sweet and innocent little thing in high school. 
isochronous fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Mar 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
Am I wrong for liking these books and not caring if the author comes off as a bit creepy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
The reason I crossposted his blog in the first place was because it was super goony and dorky sounding and it's fun to mock people who write that awkward poo poo. If you feel an emotional need to write several paragraphs apologizing the author then you're weird and probably have a hard time accepting that other people don't like the things you like. e. Ithaqua posted:Am I wrong for liking these books and not caring if the author comes off as a bit creepy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:The reason I crossposted his blog in the first place was because it was super goony and dorky sounding and it's fun to mock people who write that awkward poo poo. If you feel an emotional need to write several paragraphs apologizing the author then you're weird and probably have a hard time accepting that other people don't like the things you like. I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion forum. Was I wrong?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
Ithaqua posted:Am I wrong for liking these books and not caring if the author comes off as a bit creepy? No. I still love these books despite their flaws and have reread them more times than I care to admit.  isochronous posted:I'm sorry, but I don't think it has anything to do with a "broken view of women," it's more to do with a realistic view on how women are treated by society today. Do I know it's hosed up? Yeah, I do. But can I understand an analogy that makes use of that hosed up situation? Yeah, I can. And I honestly don't think it's furthering that view, though it's certainly not helping it, but the guy's a fiction author, not a sociologist. I never said that he should be thrown in prison or stoned to death for making the post, or that he owed me anything. It just shows his bad worldview, which is what we've been discussing in regard to his work(and now yours because you agree with him). If a comedian made an edgy joke that was offensive and someone said it revealed insight into their view on whatever the topic was, well, they're probably right. Seeing things from the privileged male worldview is not something I'm interested in doing. It's not that I don't know why he made the analogy, but that doesn't make it more appropriate. Being like "Well that's just how the world is, so no worries. Promulgating it is not a problem" is the reaction of the privileged, not the people that it affects.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
isochronous posted:I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion forum. Was I wrong?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
isochronous posted:You may be right. I seem to remember reading Sophia saying that to me in one of her replies, though she's edited hers as much as I have mine, so I can't be sure now. That had been the only reason I included it in my response. If I was mistaken, I apologize. I did say "Screw you" once, which was probably crossing a line. But at this point you have now, without irony, used the "You just don't have a sense of humor!" and "But I have a black friend!" moves as defense of your views which are not usually the counters of someone who is on firm ethical ground on these types of issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:05
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:I don't know iscochronous judging by how hostile your posts on this page you seem quite a bit more interested in screaming insults at people, I don't think that qualifies as discussion but I'm not an expert. I'm pretty sure Sophia is a big girl and can handle this discussion without you having to pop in and vomit out your 2 cents. Sophia posted:I did say "Screw you" once, which was probably crossing a line. But at this point you have now, without irony, used the "You just don't have a sense of humor!" and "But I have a black friend!" moves as defense of your views which are not usually the counters of someone who is on firm ethical ground on these types of issues. I know both of those comments are typically used in defense of untenable positions, but that doesn't mean they're always wrong. I'm just saying that I don't think Rothfuss's analogy was even above the baseline of offensive sexist comments - ie I know it was sexist but no more sexist than dozens of other things most people don't take offense to every day - so I'm not going to rain down post upon post of criticism on him, which is what happened in this thread. And there's a big difference between "But I have a black friend!" and "I'm dating a black woman!" At least, in my mind, there is. Would you disagree? edit: Sophia posted:It just shows his bad worldview, which is what we've been discussing in regard to his work(and now yours because you agree with him). quote:If a comedian made an edgy joke that was offensive and someone said it revealed insight into their view on whatever the topic was, well, they're probably right. quote:Being like "Well that's just how the world is, so no worries. Promulgating it is not a problem" is the reaction of the privileged, not the people that it affects. isochronous fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Mar 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
isochronous posted:I'm pretty sure Sophia is a big girl and can handle this discussion without you having to pop in and vomit out your 2 cents
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
Above Our Own posted:Hey cool you're being rude again and totally not getting why other people posting here might not want to read your lovely flame posts. Look, buddy, I apologized to Sophia for saying gently caress you, I edited my post, I explained my reasoning, and yet you're still here talking about how I'm just screaming insults at people. You are not contributing to this conversation, you're just cluttering up the thread with backseat moderator posts, so either join in the conversation or start a new one but for gently caress's sake otherwise butt out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:22
|
|