|
Eh, Rothfuss (and GRRM) perpetuate some bad poo poo to be fair. I won't touch the "he should kill himself" poo poo because that strikes me as standard goon hyperbole, but it's fair to say they actually promote and perpetuate some pretty bad ideas both on a social justice level and on a basic literary level, like the droves of people that talk how glorious his worldbuilding or prose is when both fail to stand up to even a cursory dissection. Their lovely depictions of women (for example) would be fine if people didn't turn around and laud them for being Good Male Feminists or their books for being good examples of how women should be represented. So on that level, I can see (and share) some of the annoyance at him as a person. The dude actually does have some pretty gross ideas and due to his popularity he has a massive platform with which to spread them. That is worth being annoyed about. I mean, I'm usually first in line to say it's fine to be entertained by something that is bad, but you have to be able to admit it's bad. You can't mindlessly defend something simply because your identity has become that closely intertwined with your hobbies that any attack on the things you like becomes an attack on you as a person. This is a bigger issue than Rothfuss, but it's something I notice among nerdier hobbies, and I think that's why people get so viciously argumentative when someone says Rothfuss is a bad writer. It's okay to like him and his schlock despite the fact that it's bad if you happen to find it entertaining... but you liking it doesn't make it good either, much less totally above reproach.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
I guess I'm kind of missing where all these droves of people praising Rothfuss for his great literary writing or feminism are. I know plenty of people who enjoyed reading his books once through as passing entertainment - and I'm one of them - but I've never met anyone who holds him up as some sort of paragon of literary virtue or feminism or anything like that. I mean yes, there is one completely insane poster in this thread who says stuff like that, but I'm talking about normal real people, not crazy internet forums personas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
Kingkiller is the kind of bad literature that is mistaken for good. There is somerhing deeply wrong about it that causes people to fervently wish for more. They aren't actually enjoying the Books. I am here to discover and illustrate what that 'something' is. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 11:24 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Kingkiller is the kind of bad literature that is mstaken for goid. There is somerhing deeply wrong about it that causes people to fervently wish för more. You should go to the ASOIAF thread, because for some reason that trash really is seen as exceptionally good literature and is already changing standards for the worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:You should go to the ASOIAF thread, because for some reason that trash really is seen as exceptionally good literature and is already changing standards for the worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:I guess I'm kind of missing where all these droves of people praising Rothfuss for his great literary writing or feminism are. I know plenty of people who enjoyed reading his books once through as passing entertainment - and I'm one of them - but I've never met anyone who holds him up as some sort of paragon of literary virtue or feminism or anything like that. I have never seen a table full of nerd acquaintances turn against me faster than when I mentioned offhandedly that I thought the books had weak prose and bad characterization when they were being discussed. There are totally people who take it real seriously. And I mean really, don't book sales and popularity speak for themselves? If the books weren't reasonably well-liked among the sort of crowd that indulges those kinds of stories, I doubt he'd still be coasting along years later, streaming Fallout and talking about all the writing for the last book he isn't doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:It's rather clear why jivjov spends so much time defending the pretense of Rothfuss still writing the series, and freaking out over "morally disgusting" statements: it helps distract from discussing the books themselves and how traumatically bad they are. You never see him actually defend Rothfuss on his literary merits. Enjoyment instead comes from participating in a fantasy life. I'm actually just really bad at "literary analysis". I know what I like and Rothfuss writes things that are, to my senses, enjoyable to read. They aren't "traumatically bad" to anyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I'm actually just really bad at "literary analysis". I know what I like and Rothfuss writes things that are, to my senses, enjoyable to read. These two sentence mean the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 14:11
|
|
anilEhilated posted:ASOIAF is enjoyable trash though. And GRRM wrote some genuinely good stuff before he dropped to this level. "He walked away like he had a dagger up his butt."
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Holy poo poo some people here hate Patrick Rothfuss. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Rothfuss is my secondary personal Antichrist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
People want the ambassadors of their hobbies to conform to very high standards and Rothfuss falls short. In many opinions, so does his work. The degree of criticism he will receive because of this is much, much higher. That's the unfortunate reality of being in the public eye.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Rothfuss could blow off writing the third book all together as far as I'm concerned so long as I get a full novel about Bast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Rothfuss may not be a good writer, but his books do have that literary SOMETHING that makes you feel like you aren't reading complete manchild books (i.e. Brandon Sanderson or Steven Erikson, or let's just say all epic fantasy, you know, Lotr or edgy Lotr-stuff). He's like Rowling, not a nobelist, but wouldn't be ashamed of liking. I still think he's a dick But i also don't particularly care whether he finishes his series or not
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
mallamp posted:Rothfuss may not be a good writer, but his books do have that literary SOMETHING that makes you feel like you aren't reading complete manchild books (i.e. Brandon Sanderson or Steven Erikson, ... I'm actually curious where Erikson falls in your manchild spectrum? I read through the Malazan 10 and didn't get that impression at all. Sanderson I can see a lot more, but I still love him and his work anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
My idea of stereotypical Erikson fan is someone who hasn't read literature, just epic fantasy, and thinks Erikson is a good writer. Elitist nerd who knows nothing type of manchild
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:Those authors can certainly be categorized as fantasy but they aren't genre fluff written purely for entertainment, which is what Rothfuss's stuff is. Of course it doesn't have literary merits. I mean it kind of goes without saying. What do you think Tolkien's stuff is written for if not entertainment? Do you think he wrote LOTR as some sort of deep philosophical experiment?  He's not considered 'genre fluff' because he's considered the father of said genre. mallamp posted:Rothfuss may not be a good writer, but his books do have that literary SOMETHING that makes you feel like you aren't reading complete manchild books (i.e. Brandon Sanderson or Steven Erikson, or let's just say all epic fantasy, you know, Lotr or edgy Lotr-stuff). He's like Rowling, not a nobelist, but wouldn't be ashamed of liking. Not sure what reality you're from where WMF wasn't a manchild escapist book but whatever floats your boat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
mallamp posted:My idea of stereotypical Erikson fan is someone who hasn't read literature, just epic fantasy, and thinks Erikson is a good writer. Elitist nerd who knows nothing type of manchild
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Reene posted:And I mean really, don't book sales and popularity speak for themselves? Well no, actually, not at all - that's what I'm getting at. No one here seems to feel the need to spend a lot of time tearing down the idea that James Patterson or E.L. James or John Grisham or Laura K Hamilton are "exceptionally good literature" because no on really thinks this, even though these authors practically live on the bestseller list - and are far more popular than Rothfuss. Just because someone is popular doesn't mean there's some sigifnicant volume of people who take them Seriously As Literature that need to be reeducated on the matter. That's why I find the specific hostility against him here (but not any of the very many other bestselling mediocre authors) a little odd. If you say you have acquaintances who are like that.. well, I'm sorry for that, I guess, but I seriously doubt that's common or some sort of cultural norm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:What do you think Tolkien's stuff is written for if not entertainment? Do you think he wrote LOTR as some sort of deep philosophical experiment? Actually yes I do think Tolkien wrote the the LOTR trilogy at least in part as a philosophical experiment, a way to play out his ideas on language and nature and morality. And also yes for entertainment, but not just for entertainment. The whole idea of world-building, the way Tolkien did it at that time, was very much a philosophical experiment in and of itself. Whereas in the modern genre form it's more of a check box that needs to be ticked off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:Well no, actually, not at all - that's what I'm getting at. No one here seems to feel the need to spend a lot of time tearing down the idea that James Patterson or E.L. James or John Grisham or Laura K Hamilton are "exceptionally good literature" because no on really thinks this, even though these authors practically live on the bestseller list - and are far more popular than Rothfuss. None of the authors you mention project a persona that what they are writing is high quality literature. Rothfuss wants to walk that walk, and it comes with a higher level of scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:Going for lower hanging fruit after they ran you off the literature thread? He asked
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:
It absolutely is but in same way Dickens at its most commercial is - you don't FEEL like you're reading bs
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
mallamp posted:It absolutely is but in same way Dickens at its most commercial is - you don't FEEL like you're reading bs If you didn't feel that way when you got to the Felurian "OMG UR TOTES NOT A VIRGIN*" or most of the Adem stuff IDK what to tell you. That were some of the worst garbage I've read in the last decade. * Or the barmaid who had sexdar, apparently, and could tell Kvothe was telling the truth because ~sexy reasons~ or whatever that absurd poo poo was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:
All women are magical to Patrick Rothfuss. If you don't agree you're a real piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
more like patrick roflfuss
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:Just because someone is popular doesn't mean there's some sigifnicant volume of people who take them Seriously As Literature that need to be reeducated on the matter. That's why I find the specific hostility against him here (but not any of the very many other bestselling mediocre authors) a little odd. If you say you have acquaintances who are like that.. well, I'm sorry for that, I guess, but I seriously doubt that's common or some sort of cultural norm. I actually assumed that was the reason most people were giving him so much flak. I read the first book because a friend lent it to me and said it was pretty neat. I thought it was a little rough around the edges but a promising showing for a first-time author. So I kept my eye out for him when I was at bookstores after that. Multiple bookstores across multiple states gave that book exceptional praise, going out of their way to have little postcards beneath it extolling how literary and progressive it was. I got a similar impression from the internet ambient. Mind you, this was before the second book came out. I think now we're just bored.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Rothfuss: a history The tone of discussion on SA about Rothfuss completely reversed course after the release of WMF. Until WMF came out, Rothfuss was considered a bright new fantasy author with meteoric prospects. He was given leeway with his first book, and certain warning signs were ignored or written off as inexperience. When WMF came out, those same problems were more apparent--the ideas about women, the Denna friend zoning, the Mary-Sueness of Kvothe, and a plot that spun its wheels for 900 pages. Stalwart fans of Rothfuss initially did what they did for Starwars: The Phantom Menace. They constructed a narrative where the problems of the book weren't actually problems--they were put there by design, and a metanarrative that absolved the sins of the novel [Kvothe embellishing his story, being as unreliable as a good Gene Wolfe narrator] would be revealed if people looked hard enough. But then the Slow Regard came out, along with the tacky foreword that insults potential critics of the novella. There is no defending that novella. It was self-indulgent in the extreme, and to let it go out to his fan base after such a long wait between main line novels was a huge mistake. The only thing Rothfuss has produced since have been embarrassing reddit Ama's, tweets that no author of sound mind would tweet, and misogynistic and goony blog posts. This kind of content, along with a regular convention circuit, have kept him somewhat in the public spotlight, and his books have continued selling. But the PR machine has turned a little vicious, and one has to wonder if the short term sales he gains from putting himself out there all the time will be worth the most likely detrimental effect on his long-term career. His next release will be a critical. A good book will likely silence many of his detractor, but not all. Another bad book will place him beside the likes of Peter V Brett, who squandered a promising career and will be soon forgotten.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:Until WMF came out, Rothfuss was considered a bright new fantasy author with meteoric prospects. He was given leeway with his first book, and certain warning signs were ignored or written off as inexperience. A good contrast in my opinion is Max Gladstone and his craft sequence. Started as a bright new prospect and has consistently released good followups in a timely fashion. His writing issues improving with experience and attentive editing and revision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:The only thing Rothfuss has produced since have been embarrassing reddit Ama's, tweets that no author of sound mind would tweet, and misogynistic and goony blog posts. I agree with this post basically 100%, but his Bast story in the Rouges collection is actually pretty decent. Bast is probably the best thing to come out of all of this after he went and ruined Auri.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Ok, why is this thread generating literally all of the reports for this forum from the past two weeks? What's wrong? Is this turning into the next ASoIaF thread or some poo poo? Why can't you all just get along? Just because Rothfuss writes bad novels doesn't mean you have to write bad posts Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Just because Rothfuss writes bad novels doesn't mean you have to write bad posts  We been told.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:Well no, actually, not at all - that's what I'm getting at. No one here seems to feel the need to spend a lot of time tearing down the idea that James Patterson or E.L. James or John Grisham or Laura K Hamilton are "exceptionally good literature" because no on really thinks this, even though these authors practically live on the bestseller list - and are far more popular than Rothfuss. I think a lot of it is because Rothfuss's work is often touted as being genre-defying deconstruction when it's just some guy's bad D&D campaign fiction. I blame it on how disposable fantasy used to be. Would people think "isn't Terry Brooks or Terry Goodkind" is some kind of refreshing revolution in the fantasy genre if the likes of say, Vance, McKillip, Swanwick and Wolfe were more broadly popular?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
Eh, there's people that still like the books, but whether they admit their flaws or not, they're just shouted down, endlessly. Be nice to have a thread for people who like the books.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
wellwhoopdedooo posted:Be nice to have a thread for people who like the books. This is that thread too, but it's just hard to cling to the good stuff when we haven't gotten anything worthwhile in 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I think a lot of it is because Rothfuss's work is often touted as being genre-defying deconstruction when it's just some guy's bad D&D campaign fiction. I blame it on how disposable fantasy used to be. Would people think "isn't Terry Brooks or Terry Goodkind" is some kind of refreshing revolution in the fantasy genre if the likes of say, Vance, McKillip, Swanwick and Wolfe were more broadly popular?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok, why is this thread generating literally all of the reports for this forum from the past two weeks? It could be that the vast majority of reports in this thread, and probably on the whole forums, are baseless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:It could be that the vast majority of reports in this thread, and probably on the whole forums, are baseless. Or that the cult of personality surrounding Rothfuss is as bad at dealing with criticism as the man himself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:Or that the cult of personality surrounding Rothfuss is as bad at dealing with criticism as the man himself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
anilEhilated posted:Or the reports are all by My money would be on people reporting jivjov more than him reporting other people. Also, it's kinda nice to have this thread start to tail spin. Who'd of thought all it would take is someone defending Rothfuss?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 15:11
|
|