|
isochronous posted: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. Dude, this is the freakin' point!! The "baseline" isn't acceptable, and it's less acceptable because he broadcasts it to a wider audience. Just because you've never seen anyone take offense doesn't mean that they don't, and that no one is hurt by it!
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
isochronous posted: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? I would disagree... other than maybe making the hypothetical person more of a dick for still having racist opinions. Serious question: Do you think casually sexist, overprivileged men do not date women ever or something? Pat has a wife or at least serious partner right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
I mean, really, do you understand that you just admitted that it is sexist and yet you feel the need to continue to defending it? Can you step back for a minute?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > Patrick Rothfuss: /r/mensrights Perhaps you are not the person to lecture people about post quality or thread contribution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
I just checked our post histories in this thread and it looks like I've participated in a whole lot more discussion about the novel and author now that you bring it up. Whole big walls o' text, click my ? mark for more info!
Above Our Own fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Mar 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:Dude, this is the freakin' point!! The "baseline" isn't acceptable, and it's less acceptable because he broadcasts it to a wider audience. I know that, man. Baseline probably wasn't the best word to use, but it was the only one that immediately sprang to mind. What I was trying to say is that of all the external and internal stimuli we experience every day, there are those that we don't give a second thought to (whether we should or not), like fashion ads in magazines, or the clear marketing of dolls to girls and "action figures" to boys, and then those that really stand out as obviously bad, like hearing a white guy call a black guy friend of the family. Now, ideally, we should be outraged about each and every one of these things, and no one should ever do anything to promulgate any of them. But realistically, we have a limited amount of energy and outrage to give, so we focus on the really bad things, and everything else kind of slides under that baseline. And while it's easy to say "it's never acceptable to broadcast that kind of stuff!" do you really think that analogy introduced any new concepts to anyone who's ever spent an hour on the internet? It simply made reference to concepts that are already familiar to society, and whether admirable or not, it's understandable. But anyway, I have to start getting some work done, so I'll leave you guys alone for now. It's been an interesting discussion  Above Our Own posted:I just checked our post histories in this thread and it looks like I've participated in a whole lot more discussion about the novel and author now that you bring it up. Whole big walls o' text, click my ? mark for more info! Good for you. I'm not talking about this thread, I'm talking about this conversation. ultrachrist posted:Serious question: Do you think casually sexist, overprivileged men do not date women ever or something? Pat has a wife or at least serious partner right? My initial statement wasn't "I'm dating a woman," it was "If you had ever met the woman I'm dating you'd know..." because the woman I've been dating for the past 6 years is a strong feminist, sociology major, women's studies minor, and we frequently discuss the topic of societal pressure & traditional gender roles. I suppose I'm just also a bit of a pragmatic fatalist, so I don't really see the advantage of constantly letting things upset me that I can't do anything about. isochronous fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Mar 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
isochronous posted:And while it's easy to say "it's never acceptable to broadcast that kind of stuff!" do you really think that analogy introduced any new concepts to anyone who's ever spent an hour on the internet? It simply made reference to concepts that are already familiar to society, and whether admirable or not, it's understandable. It all matters! Ask yourself this question: Why are you spending time defending something sexist, ever? Do you think there aren't some 15 year old boys out there using the internet, having not just the implicit images but the explicit ideas of Madonna/whore spelled out for them right there?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:It all matters! Ask yourself this question: Why are you spending time defending something sexist, ever? Because the only sexist part about it are the societal stereotypes that were already established long before Rothfuss ever picked up his first pencil, and he is simply making reference to them. Seriously though, I'm out. Gotta get some work done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
isochronous posted:I suppose I'm just also a bit of a pragmatic fatalist, so I don't really see the advantage of constantly letting things upset me that I can't do anything about. This is the very definition of privilege.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
Yeah it's an utter shock you don't see any problem with something that doesn't directly affect you!!isochronous posted:Because the only sexist part about it are the societal stereotypes that were already established long before Rothfuss ever picked up his first pencil, and he is simply making reference to them. What I'm asking is why you're defending sexism of any kind in any situation. Why is it a thing that needs defending??? Don't you think there are plenty of people protecting misogyny without a dude who supposedly recognizes it when he sees it going out of his way to defend somebody doing something gross even if it's "not that bad" by your judgment? (by the way, if a woman is offended by it and you aren't, whose opinion do you think counts??) Danhenge fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Mar 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
Idiot sexist baby aside ("I'm a pragmatic fatalist at heart". Wow), I find it pretty difficult to divorce art from artist in this instance because the two are so inextricably linked. Kvothe is Rothfuss and both of them are unsettling, creepy people who make me cringe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
Hopefully maybe even if Rothfuss himself doesn't appreciate the detractors, his editors will realize that a lot of his readers will appreciate them taking a little bit of a harder line with him for the next book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
Sophia posted:This is the very definition of privilege. I actually think it's closer to the definition of apathy, but suit yourself. Evfefdu posted:Idiot sexist baby aside ("I'm a pragmatic fatalist at heart". Wow) You wound me, sir. But I know I can't do anything about it and it wouldn't matter if I did anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
isochronous posted:I actually think it's closer to the definition of apathy, but suit yourself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
isochronous posted:I actually think it's closer to the definition of apathy, but suit yourself. Yeah, it's definitely quite a privilege you have to be able to pick and choose what you care about with regards to other people's oppression!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:Yeah, it's definitely quite a privilege you have to be able to pick and choose what you care about with regards to other people's oppression!! You're framing this as an issue of black and white, when it's not. I can choose to actively address the things I see as gross injustice while still not being consumed by every situation that I see as unfortunate. My raging against the analogy, so to speak, isn't really going to do anyone any good, even if I were offended by it. I don't think you can really claim with a straight face that Rothfuss was trying to oppress women, but if you can, we just have a fundamentally different interpretation of his intent. I think Rothfuss is as much a product of society as anyone, and there's no reason to take offense from what he probably viewed as just assembling a set of ideas that can easily be pulled from current pop culture. While it's true he could use his blog as a forum to enact positive social change, everyone needs some down time and a forum to express their views, and that blog provides both of those things for him, so I can't fault him for using it to post something with the expectation that it will won't be taken as an indication of a "shallow and simple view of women". I mean, all we really know about his views on women are this blog post and the exploits of a fictional character who is inexperienced in love for 3/4 of his story. For all we know he could be volunteering down at the battered women's shelter every weekend. It just seems premature to condemn him for what is, at this point, purely circumstantial evidence. isochronous fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Mar 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:Hopefully maybe even if Rothfuss himself doesn't appreciate the detractors, his editors will realize that a lot of his readers will appreciate them taking a little bit of a harder line with him for the next book. Considering how for Wise Man's Fear his editor basically said to make sure to keep the word count at a level where the book can be physically printed I don't think Rothfuss has much, if any editorial pressure at all. WMF's sales were good and was pretty well received for the most part so I think it's unlikely that they'll change in time for the next book. Hopefully depending on how the third book is received his editors will be a little more discerning with any future projects. Shame that policy is more or less par for the course whenever a fantasy book is a hit. I can't even keep track of how many fantasy series I've read where from the second book onwards there's a few hundred pages of bloat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
isochronous posted:You're framing this as an issue of black and white, when it's not. I can choose to care about the things I see as gross injustice while still tolerating what I see as the current unfortunate state of society. I don't think you can really claim with a straight face that Rothfuss was trying to oppress women, but if you can, we just have a fundamentally different interpretation of his intent. Dude, if you think the "intentional" oppression is the only kind of oppression that matters you gotta get your head checked. Obviously he didn't intend that, but his intention doesn't necessarily have bearing on the impact that he had, capiche? If you say something racist, even if you didn't "mean" to be racist, it's still racist, it's still oppressive. And in the end, an argument about intent is pointless because it allows people who are actually bigoted that want to play the line to claim they "didn't mean it" and hide behind that. What matters is what he actually did. You yourself admitted, it was sexist and the fact that you're willing to tolerate it is irrelevant! There are women here, telling you they don't like it! That should matter to you more than Rothfuss' intent!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:Dude, if you think the "intentional" oppression is the only kind of oppression that matters you gotta get your head checked. Obviously he didn't intend that, but his intention doesn't necessarily have bearing on the impact that he had, capiche? If you say something racist, even if you didn't "mean" to be racist, it's still racist, it's still oppressive. And in the end, an argument about intent is pointless because it allows people who are actually bigoted that want to play the line to claim they "didn't mean it" and hide behind that. What matters is what he actually did. You yourself admitted, it was sexist and the fact that you're willing to tolerate it is irrelevant! There are women here, telling you they don't like it! That should matter to you more than Rothfuss' intent! But if he's honestly innocent of harmful intent, does that place the blame on him, or on the society that shaped him? There are some girls that get offended by the modern expectation that they should trim their pubic hair. Does that mean I can't post "man I sure do love a shaved labia!" on my blog for fear of perpetuating that stereotype and offending someone who is pro-bush? Edit: And I still don't think a majority people would interpret it as sexist. I think the only reason he chose a woman as the vehicle for his analogy was that he is a man. I'm now arguing that even if your assertion is true, I don't think he's guilty of anything other than being an average member of modern society. isochronous fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Mar 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
isochronous posted:But if he's honestly innocent of harmful intent, does that place the blame on him, or on the society that shaped him? Society is made of its members. Without criticism, without pushing at people to behave in a better way, without condemning these things as they happen in our social contexts, nothing changes. We become complicit in this behavior. Duh. quote:There are some girls that get offended by the modern expectation that they should trim their pubic hair. Does that mean I can't post "man I sure do love a shaved labia!" on my blog for fear of perpetuating that stereotype and offending someone who is pro-bush? Cool way to objectify their genitals, bro. edit: Perhaps "You didn't mean it that way!!!!  Consider the meaningful difference between "I like it when a woman shaves down there" and "man, i sure do love a shaved labia!" If you can't see it: You might be a misogynist! And the fact that you chose to describe it in that way is illustrative, whether or not you want to admit that. Danhenge fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Mar 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:Society is made of its members. Without criticism, without pushing at people to behave in a better way, without condemning these things as they happen in our social contexts, nothing changes. We become complicit in this behavior. Duh. quote:Cool way to objectify their genitals, bro. My god man, are you just trolling me now or what? I was purposely being flippant to indicate that I find the concept ridiculous. But no, obviously my saying that immediately indicates that I in no way can appreciate the woman that just happens to accompany said labia as an individual. Every comment I make about anyone should perforce include a description of everything I love about a person, including their shining personality, their rich throaty laugh, and jesus I just can't even make myself keep responding to this, it's just too drat stupid. quote:If you can't see it: You might be a misogynist! And the fact that you chose to describe it in that way is illustrative, whether or not you want to admit that. isochronous fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Mar 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
If you don't think the way people use words matter, why the gently caress are you reading books? Why are you discussing their merits in the first place?quote:Freud called, he wants his flawed theories back. One sentence describes genitals as an object! The other one describes women as an agent in their own sexuality!! These differences matter! Implications matter! These subtle differences are what make up the pressures of society that you seem to think are so pervasive! How more clear can I get!!! Danhenge fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Mar 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
I do think words matter. I just don't think you can look at one blog post and a fiction story he wrote in college and immediately accuse him of oppressing women because he writes a "nice guy" character and is bad at writing believable female characters. He's a young writer, probably doesn't have a lot of experience with women, and he made the same mistakes a lot of young male writers make, but that doesn't make him some sort of sexist monster.Danhenge posted:One sentence describes genitals as an object! The other one describes women as an agent in their own sexuality!! These differences matter! Implications matter! These subtle differences are what make up the pressures of society that you seem to think are so pervasive! How more clear can I get!!! Genitals are essentially an object! My heart is an object, my liver is an object, and my penis is an object, too. It doesn't intrinsically diminish the person to which they're attached to refer to only a single part of their anatomy at a time. Intention IS important, as are the words. You can't say "intention doesn't matter," just like you can't say "word choice doesn't matter." You cannot separate the two. You are right in that I COULD have intended that word choice to just indicate any hairless labia, but I also could have said that directly to my girlfriend, and she would immediately know that I intended it in a different, more personal way, and was just using a slightly humorous turn of phrase. isochronous fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Mar 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
isochronous posted:I do think words matter. I just don't think you can look at one blog post and a fiction story he wrote in college and immediately accuse him of oppressing women because he writes a "nice guy" character and is bad at writing believable female characters. He's a young writer, probably doesn't have a lot of experience with women, and he made the same mistakes a lot of young male writers make, but that doesn't make him some sort of sexist monster. First of all, I've never described him as a monster. Being part of an oppressive society, making statements that contribute to the oppression of women - those aren't great things! They're (being a monster, acting in a way that's misogynist) distinct and you're conflating the two! Secondly, obviously you can describe parts of people as things. But your choices aren't context-less! Women's sexuality and control over their bodies have a storied history, and your choice to ignore that and somehow treat it ahistorically is also a part of oppression! That doesn't make you a monster, but it might make you misogynist in this context! Sometimes I'm misogynist, or racist too! Reflecting on these, recognizing them, and making an effort to make your language and actions better reflect your understanding are important! And you're right, intent does matter but it takes a second place to outcome, as I've described earlier. So that was a poor choice of words. Danhenge fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Mar 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
Thanks. And when you describe that inner racist/misogynist, I get what you're saying. I was taking offense before because I believed you were describing me as an overt misogynist, which is something I make a good bit of effort not to be. However, I just realized how far we had strayed from my initial argument, so I'm just going to backtrack and address the post that I felt led to this branch of the discussion. 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!" I do not believe that he indicated he projected the things that made him fall for the girl in the first place. I do not believe he indicated that he was distressed over a lack of control over her development. I do not believe he indicated anything other than that he was sad that the girl grew up to lose the traits that attracted him to her. He never said that it was a morally bad thing, that she shouldn't have grown up like that, that she would have been a "better woman" otherwise, etc. He simply saw how she had developed and decided that 1) he wasn't attracted to her anymore, and 2) he was sad about that. I don't think it's fundamentally sexist to say "I wish she had developed differently." It's an observation, not a judgement. That's why I wasn't offended.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
isochronous posted:Thanks. And when you describe that inner racist/misogynist, I get what you're saying. I was taking offense before because I believed you were describing me as an overt misogynist, which is something I make a good bit of effort not to be. Its pretty clear that Rothfuss was assigning more value to the idealized youthful fantasy of the girl than the girl she became, and this value is derived from how much pleasure she made him feel and nothing else. He was unsuccessful in framing his analogy in terms of appreciating subjective beauty. He was comparing her to an entertainment product (big mistake), and ended up skewed towards the objective side. I don't think he's sexist at heart, but I do think he's immature and inexperienced at life and relationships. Its gross to see a big bearded man acting like an infatuated 14 year old.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
isochronous posted:I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion forum. Was I wrong? isochronous posted:I actually think it's closer to the definition of apathy, but suit yourself. isochronous posted:But if he's honestly innocent of harmful intent, does that place the blame on him, or on the society that shaped him? You're a useless weiner turd better suited to D&D circa 2008. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
frozenpeas posted: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. This is horseshit. Oh don't you see, you can't be critical of this guy's genuinely reprehensible attitude to women or his poor characterization because everyone has dreams! Give me a loving break.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
Any word on when book 3 is coming to town? I really enjoyed book one. I loved the lore. I loved the mini-stories that gave the history of the legends. I liked the framing story. I wasn't particularly attached to Kvothe as a character though. Book two took out pretty much everything I liked about book one, except for a tiny bit about the fae and the Adem. (I liked the story of stealing the moon for instance.) Now I just want to read book 3 to be done with the series honestly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
Hughlander posted:Any word on when book 3 is coming to town? 2013 at the earliest. Probably much later if Rothfuss actually tries to finish everything up in one book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
Hughlander posted:Any word on when book 3 is coming to town? Around spring 2013, according to estimates made by Rothfuss about a year ago and his publisher more recently. I think I saw May 13, but I'm sure that's just an estimate and not a hard date.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
Hughlander posted:Any word on when book 3 is coming to town? Half the school scenes were pretty cool, and Kvothe's bookie should be the focus of the 3rd book as she is one of the only interesting characters. I would also read a book about the dude who runs the fishery, or the librarian in his younger days. We also get to find out whats behind the doors/under the university probably. And, Kvothe might die at the end! And that chick he loves almost certainly dies, since she isn't at the inn and Kvothe is all mope mope mope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 06:55
|
|
|
I'll bet he ends up fighting an angel over her (limping dude???) and then she ends up becoming one of the angel dudes anyway. Owned Kvothe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 13:37
|
|
|
Kvothe promised never to look into her benefactor, but he does. So Denna gets mad with him until she finds out her benefactor is evil via getting murdered. Women  I'm not holding out much hope for book 3's "unreliable narrator" ending I'd been pinning most of the crap on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 13:43
|
|
|
Yeah, the unreliable-narrator would be sweet, but there is no way. If he could make that work, I'd start to agree with some of the critical praise the series has gotten, but I'm not holding my breath. It may yet prove to be an unhappy ending, which could be almost as good if done right. He's really not a bad writer, just a young one without a lot of skill at characterization. It'll probably be a happy ending, which will simply mean I'll have read a trilogy with moderate enjoyment and no particular desire to re-read it. Could be worse (but God it could have been so much better, it's just frustrating). mdemone fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Mar 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
mdemone posted:It'll probably be a happy ending[...] I really hope it's not a happy ending. After the way it's been built up that he fails spectacularly, and it turns into some kind of "he gets the girl and they live happily ever after" I will flip a table or something. Look at him now, he can't do magic and he got the crap beat out of him (but he still took a perfect step at the end of WMF), it just has to be a tragedy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
pakman posted:I really hope it's not a happy ending. After the way it's been built up that he fails spectacularly, and it turns into some kind of "he gets the girl and they live happily ever after" I will flip a table or something. Look at him now, he can't do magic and he got the crap beat out of him (but he still took a perfect step at the end of WMF), it just has to be a tragedy. It seems to me like the third book is heading toward him graduating, meeting Bast, killing the king, and then getting into some sort of scrap with the Chandrian where he likely takes one of them out (maybe the king in question is a Chandrian, for the purposes of narrative economy). During all of this he loses Denna somehow, damages his name, and then heads off to the inn to nurse his wounds, at which point we return to present day where he reveals he is ready to get back into the fight. KVOTHE WILL RETURN IN...
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
Not sure I need to spoiler this but I'm maybe a little more hopeful about the unreliable narrator/some sort of really unhappy ending because of the evil tree that can see all possible futures and that has presumably hosed up Kvothe's life as much as his life can possibly be hosed up. I mean if that's not an easy out for Rothfuss to fulfill all of our dreams and show that he's not just writing himself into a fantasy world where he gets to have sex with everyone and be super smart and stuff, then I don't know what is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2012 07:47
|
|
|
I seriously want it to be a super happy ending where Kvothe just totally rules for like the entire book just based on how much it will piss everyone on this forum off. I mostly just enjoy the prose (not that I think the story is bad, it ain't great but it's good enough that I don't hate reading it), so it's a win-win for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2012 08:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
I'm kind of hoping that it really is an unreliable narrator, but is done in a really lovely way, without any forshadowing or anything, just out of nowhere "I lied about my past. OR DID I???"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2012 14:29
|
|