|
jivjov posted:I seem to remember a blog post by Rothfuss saying something to the effect of "well I had an outline written, and a lot of the early stuff written, but I've had to do lots of rewrites and fleshing out since the original draft was from my college days" There are blog posts that state what you just said, and there are blog posts that say the story was 95% done and only minor editing was needed. What probably happened was that he had a complete first draft done for the whole thing, but let the success of the first book go to his head and decided to rewrite everything.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
The motive of all Ruh. A good story. If he cannot tell a good story then it is no story at all. I would not exactly say 'untrustworthy'. It is also just a crafted point of view. Imagine the story told from Denna's perspective (shudder).
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
Sogol posted:The motive of all Ruh. A good story. If he cannot tell a good story then it is no story at all. I would not exactly say 'untrustworthy'. Chronicler convinces him to tell the truth of his story by pointing out that this is the only chance he will ever have to have the truth of his life recorded before he dies, and he does believe his death is imminent. If Kvothe is a liar then the framing story has a lot of nonsensical and unexplainable elements. The unreliable narrator theory keeps coming up but I don't really think there's anything in the text that supports the idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
I don't think he is lying. In fact I think he believes he is clearing up the record. I also think he is telling a story and to him that means something more than a merely 'factual' account.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:
One thing that supports this is when Denna brings up a kind of magic where writing things down makes them happen. Kvothe dismisses it at the time, but there is some speculation he is using the Chronicler to weave a spell that will change his past or destiny. Personally, it feels more like a straightforward story-within-a-story. I don't think Rothfuss loves Kvothe as much as Kvothe loves Kvothe but I don't think he'd have him lie about the entire narrative either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
I don't see anything to support the unreliable narrator. I'm pretty sure that's just a thing from the handful of people going on about how it's so bad and so Mary Sue that the only way it could POSSIBLY be good is if Kvothe was lying about everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
At the beginning of the first book, Kvothe introduces himself in typically humble fashion, and one of the descriptors he gives himself is destroyer of some town. That ends up being the town the draccus went on his drugged up bender through. Given that Kvothe's actions were closer to saving the town, his first description was pretty inaccurate. I think this gives a good picture of the way Kvothe is an unreliable narrator. He's not making up everything wholesale, but he is very much telling a story. Some things are exaggerated. Everything is colored by his opinions. Take Denna. He goes on about her like a lovesick schoolboy, but absolutely no one else in the story views there relationship positively.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 08:35
|
|
|
I'd say Kvothe is unreliable narrator in that post-modern (sorry for using this word, I hate pretentious words too) sense that everyone's unreliable narrator, but I don't think it's very important. Sure, the whole frame of story builds on difference between common stories (which have been proven to be quite inaccurate/exaggerated) vs. "the truth" but Kvothe's version is as close to truth as we're going to get (since we don't live in Four Corners and/or are Pat Rothfuss), so there's no real point in trying to undermine it aswell..
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 12:54
|
|
|
mallamp posted:I'd say Kvothe is unreliable narrator in that post-modern (sorry for using this word, I hate pretentious words too) sense that everyone's unreliable narrator, but I don't think it's very important. Sure, the whole frame of story builds on difference between common stories (which have been proven to be quite inaccurate/exaggerated) vs. "the truth" but Kvothe's version is as close to truth as we're going to get (since we don't live in Four Corners and/or are Pat Rothfuss), so there's no real point in trying to undermine it aswell..
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
Wittgen posted:At the beginning of the first book, Kvothe introduces himself in typically humble fashion, and one of the descriptors he gives himself is destroyer of some town. That ends up being the town the draccus went on his drugged up bender through. Given that Kvothe's actions were closer to saving the town, his first description was pretty inaccurate. Yeah, but Kvothe was the one who fed the draccus the gently caress-off huge ball of drugs that sent the dragon on the bender, making him indirectly responsible for it. He saved the city from the consequences of something he did. If I sic a dog on you and call it back once you're mauled up a bit, you're probably not going to describe it as that one time I saved your life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
I never meant to suggest 'unreliable'. He is a particular type of narrator in the tradition of his Father who spent years crafting a song and died for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
See, the pirate/shipwreck story being entirely skipped over is, in my mind, kind of important. Like, if he'd told that story, there would be a concrete tale of Kvothe being genuinely heroic and making good decisions on the record and Kote has been spinning this long story of how Kvothe, the World Famous Hero, is actually a bumbling poo poo who gets everything memorable just handed to him on a platter. It's not quite subtle OR overt enough to make this theory really work though, and I know I'm just throwing random ideas to the wind in the hopes that book 3 will be fantastic. I just don't want two of the books I've enjoyed reading most in the last ten years to be as awkward/embarrassing as the overarching message/story seems to be building to so I'll justify it with anything until I can read The Doors of Stone and eat my drat words.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Whalley posted:See, the pirate/shipwreck story being entirely skipped over is, in my mind, kind of important. Like, if he'd told that story, there would be a concrete tale of Kvothe being genuinely heroic and making good decisions on the record and Kote has been spinning this long story of how Kvothe, the World Famous Hero, is actually a bumbling poo poo who gets everything memorable just handed to him on a platter. It's not quite subtle OR overt enough to make this theory really work though, and I know I'm just throwing random ideas to the wind in the hopes that book 3 will be fantastic. I just don't want two of the books I've enjoyed reading most in the last ten years to be as awkward/embarrassing as the overarching message/story seems to be building to so I'll justify it with anything until I can read The Doors of Stone and eat my drat words.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
I've read that not narrating the pirate story was Rothfuss showing off that his book was different; turning the stereotype of an action sequence on its head and effectively saying "the quiet bits of this book are the important bits/ develop the story". If it is, I reckon that's a crap reason for skipping an interesting bit of story in favour of narrating 200-300+ pages of tedium, especially given he breaks that theme to chuck in a couple of totally disconnected short stories at the end about fairy sex and sex village.
The Supreme Court fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
The Supreme Court posted:I've read that not narrating the pirate story was Rothfuss showing off that his book was different; turning the stereotype of an action sequence on its head. If it is, I reckon that's a crap reason for skipping an interesting bit of story in favour of narrating 200-300+ pages of tedium.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
I feel like that reasoning would be sound if the section in question wasn't preceded by a few hundred pages of Kvothe having money troubles again and not learning anything meaningful about the Chandrian again. Like, if the book opened up with a quick note about how his research went nowhere and how the pirate adventures that happened while traveling didn't drastically change his life or anything, then that would have been perfectly fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
The Supreme Court posted:I've read that not narrating the pirate story was Rothfuss showing off that his book was different; turning the stereotype of an action sequence on its head and effectively saying "the quiet bits of this book are the important bits/ develop the story". If it is, I reckon that's a crap reason for skipping an interesting bit of story in favour of narrating 200-300+ pages of tedium, especially given he breaks that theme to chuck in a couple of totally disconnected short stories at the end about fairy sex and sex village. It would have worked well - and I enjoyed the idea that we were only getting the parts of the Kvothe story in detail that Kvothe thought were important/interesting - if the Felurian story had been a lot shorter and focused more on the Tree of Doom. e;f,b (slightly different emphasis, but ok).
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
I want someone to combine his books into a single 1,000 page volume. There's so much fat they seem really primed for a re-working a la The Phantom Edit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
Or, if he just out and out did the Steven Brust thing and unabashedly emulated the Dickens and Dumas model where they were paid by the word for installments. I should be clear, structural considerations about story and such aside, I really like Rothfuss.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
I can't figure out whether I should keep these books on my Amazon wishlist. The way you guys describe them make them sound terrible but you love them at the same time?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Khizan posted:Yeah, but Kvothe was the one who fed the draccus the gently caress-off huge ball of drugs that sent the dragon on the bender, making him indirectly responsible for it. He saved the city from the consequences of something he did. The draccus was already high and already close enough to the village that it could have seen the festival bonfires. I could totally be remembering wrong, but I thought the wad'o'drugs was an attempt to kill the draccus before it started going through withdrawal and attacking people. I really don't think it's fair to say he sicced the draccus on the town. I don't think you'd describe him as the savior of the town, but calling him the destroyer of the town is even more of a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:I can't figure out whether I should keep these books on my Amazon wishlist. The way you guys describe them make them sound terrible but you love them at the same time? I can't speak for everyone here but personally the way I see it is that Rothfuss does have talent as a writer but he gets caught up in dumb neckbeardy stuff like nice guy-isms and sex fairy goddesses. He has good prose and does a fine job at worldbuilding without feeling like you're reading a D&D manual like most fantasy tends to do, but on the other hand the protagonist is one heck of a self-insert character. It's probably why the thread is so big. There's a lot to like about the books! But there's also a lot to hate! It really leaves me feeling rather conflicted about the series. No doubt a lot of people are also feeling conflicted about it, and that's the sort of thing that can really get discussion going. Srice fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:I can't figure out whether I should keep these books on my Amazon wishlist. The way you guys describe them make them sound terrible but you love them at the same time? Edit: If you ever saw that episode of Deep Space 9 where Garek discusses the highest form of Cardassian literature, the repetitive-epic, and it sounded like a good idea, then you'll like reading about Kvothe's troubles with money and a girl named Denna. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:I can't figure out whether I should keep these books on my Amazon wishlist. The way you guys describe them make them sound terrible but you love them at the same time? I love the first book. I wish more plot and less stupid poo poo happened in the second book, but I've read it a couple of times and enjoyed it. So get the first book and see what you think. Personally, I love pages like this: quote:My name is Kvothe, pronounced nearly the same as "quothe." Names are important as they tell you a great deal about a person. I've had more names than anyone has a right to. The Adem call me Maedre. Which, depending on how it's spoken, can mean The Flame, The Thunder, or The Broken Tree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:I can't figure out whether I should keep these books on my Amazon wishlist. The way you guys describe them make them sound terrible but you love them at the same time? The books are a C+/B- story told by an A+ writer. He doesn't have the best plot or the best characters. He doesn't even come close to it. What is he does have, though, is the most beautifully flowing and readable prose in the genre. I picked the first book up at 7pm and the next thing I knew the sun was coming up. Sure, the books have problems, the characters have problems, and he seems like a Nice Guy to the bone, but I didn't notice ANY of that crap while I was actually reading the book.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:I can't figure out whether I should keep these books on my Amazon wishlist. The way you guys describe them make them sound terrible but you love them at the same time? They are fun, with some annoying parts. But even the annoying parts (like the recurrent oh-noes-how-did-i-paid-for-hogwarts?!) are fun to read, because his prose is lively and entertaining. Definitely worth the couple of bucks they cost. Also, I kind of liked that they skipped the whole pirate thing. Finally, someone in a book managed to transport themselves from a to b without ten chapters of travelogue. It's like the anti-gurm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Khizan posted:The books are a C+/B- story told by an A+ writer. He doesn't have the best plot or the best characters. He doesn't even come close to it. What is he does have, though, is the most beautifully flowing and readable prose in the genre. I picked the first book up at 7pm and the next thing I knew the sun was coming up. Sure, the books have problems, the characters have problems, and he seems like a Nice Guy to the bone, but I didn't notice ANY of that crap while I was actually reading the book. I can't agree with this more. Kvothe's story is pretty good and has a very unique framing device, but it's Rothfuss's prose that brings me back. It seems sometimes the main story is the least interesting part about these books. He spends alot of time spinning his wheels and repeating certain themes ( I have no money! I like flute!Denna pretty! ) but at the same time you don't really care because it's so well written. Itls exciting to think where he might be and what he might write 20 years from now. The worldbuilding is also very intriguing, the Chadrian and the Amyr especially. If you can get past the "Holden Caufield goes to Hogwarts" premise and look deeper into the books you can find some really interesting stuff. I wonder if Abenthy wiol come back or play any bigger part in the series. Just don't read his blog or articles about him. He has some...interesting views on women.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:I can't figure out whether I should keep these books on my Amazon wishlist. The way you guys describe them make them sound terrible but you love them at the same time?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:I can't figure out whether I should keep these books on my Amazon wishlist. The way you guys describe them make them sound terrible but you love them at the same time?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
Khizan posted:The books are a C+/B- story told by an A+ writer. He doesn't have the best plot or the best characters. He doesn't even come close to it. What is he does have, though, is the most beautifully flowing and readable prose in the genre. I picked the first book up at 7pm and the next thing I knew the sun was coming up. Sure, the books have problems, the characters have problems, and he seems like a Nice Guy to the bone, but I didn't notice ANY of that crap while I was actually reading the book. Yeah I'll back this. His writing makes it easy to lose track of time and read for hours, but hopefully he pulls a Sanderson and works on his weaker areas book by book. Sometimes the second book feels like a RPG where you do so many sidequests you lose track of the main plotline at times and forget what the central story is about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Democratic Pirate posted:Sometimes the second book feels like a RPG where you do so many sidequests you lose track of the main plotline at times and forget what the central story is about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Oh, oh, holy poo poo, this guy could write an amaaazing RPG. All of the problems I have with his writing, he's perfectly suited to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
I think the dream in this thread is Neil Gaiman writes the outline, Patrick Rothfuss writes the book.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
I think the dream in this thread is that Rothfuss's editor gives instructions more detailed than "you are perfect, write more of that solid gold, you tremendous person you."
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
Khizan posted:The books are a C+/B- story told by an A+ writer. He doesn't have the best plot or the best characters. He doesn't even come close to it. What is he does have, though, is the most beautifully flowing and readable prose in the genre. I picked the first book up at 7pm and the next thing I knew the sun was coming up. Sure, the books have problems, the characters have problems, and he seems like a Nice Guy to the bone, but I didn't notice ANY of that crap while I was actually reading the book. This is the best way they have ever been described.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
I totally agree that Rothfuss is an A+ writer with a C+ story going on. I hope when he's done with Book 3, he sits down with some of Brandon Sanderson's lectures on giving up on the idea you've wanted to make for ten years and just starting something from scratch with the intention of writing something new. Rothfuss has said in many interviews how he wishes he had Sanderson's work ethic, so maybe being told to give up on his precious child bullshit and start something from scratch will bring his story up to more of a B+/A- level. Accretionist posted:Oh, oh, holy poo poo, this guy could write an amaaazing RPG. All of the problems I have with his writing, he's perfectly suited to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
Do we still not have any idea whether the appearance of the Cthaeh on the first book's cover is a red herring, or an actual clue to the ending? If it turns out to be the former, I'm going to be pissed at Rothfuss for allowing that kind of head-fake (and also for ending the series in a way not compatible with the Cthaeh).
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
The Cthaeh at the start of a story means it's going to be a tragedy, going by what Bast said.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
Khizan posted:The Cthaeh at the start of a story means it's going to be a tragedy, going by what Bast said.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
Above Our Own posted:Unless he breaks that motherfuckin tree. Because his name means broken tree. Probably when he goes back to get its flower that cures anything to cure whatever happened to Denna. I always imagined that as the what would happen after the story. He picks himself up and heads off to unfuck his biggest fuckup.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 22:46
|
|