|
Nakar posted:It must be regional on top of that because I've never heard that before and I hail from just about the swearingest state. Seems it comes about mostly in the south and mideast, though rural New England probably uses it a bit too because it crops up a lot in Stephen King's books.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:This one? Yeah, I think that was it, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Flattened Spoon posted:I tried looking for this on Amazon and the reviews on it are It looks like there are a lot of reviews for a book by Bat Ye'or on there for some reason
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:I'm a musician and I hats leaving my instruments in sunlight. We care for them and clean them and have an attachment to them, that's very true, but besides jokingly giving them a name the reason we care for them is because they let us express ourselves in a way that by ourselves we can't. Rothfuss says he knows nothing about being a musician and it shows a lot. It's one of the best awful things about his books. He has zero personal experience as a musician and his main character is some super prodigy who does things sane musicians don't actually do. Pretty much the only thing that he manages to get right is wanting to murder some chucklefuck who destroys your instrument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
How much effort does it take to read a book about being a professional musician or you know, talk to one? They're not exactly rare.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:How much effort does it take to read a book about being a professional musician or you know, talk to one? They're not exactly rare. You know Xeno's paradox? Well, every time Rothfuss tries to read a book he has to rewrite it. So he's never actually read anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Rothfuss argues through Kvothe multiple times that people who lack experience with something simply cannot understand it. It would therefore be pointless for him to attempt to learn to understand something he does not already understand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Unless you have ever tried to write about being a musician without knowing anything about it, you can never truly know what it is like to write about being a musician.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Nonmusicians don’t understand. Bare minutes after the music started I practically fled the room. I doubt very much you’ll be able to understand why, but I suppose I have to explain if things are to make any sense at all. To all appearances I held the lute casually, carelessly. But in my heart I was clutching it with a white-knuckled fierceness. I cannot hope for you to understand this. If you cannot understand why I couldn’t bring myself to tell them this, then I doubt you have ever been truly poor. If you have never been desperately poor, I doubt you can understand the relief I felt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
I think some of the stuff you're criticizing above is intentional. Kvothe is pretty clearly a condescending rear end in a top hat (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not), so it makes sense for him to say the really banal things a condescending rear end in a top hat would say. I think Rothfuss really nailed that one. I thought this was also true about Kvothe's propensity to become whatever he thinks the situation demands. That's a part of his personality, and telegraphed extensively by his acting as an innkeeper in the framing story and his childhood training in acting. It makes enough sense; his parents put on countless stories and acted out countless stories in front of him. Kvothe, for all his bluster, is still a teen who doesn't know nearly as much about the world as he thinks he does (hence book 2). He sees the stories of people's lives unfolding around him, and tries plays a part because that's what he knows. I think it also fits with the themes of how stories shape people that Rothfuss has going throughout the book.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
Wishes he had going, really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:I think some of the stuff you're criticizing above is intentional. Kvothe is pretty clearly a condescending rear end in a top hat (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not), so it makes sense for him to say the really banal things a condescending rear end in a top hat would say. I think Rothfuss really nailed that one. You're ignoring that all those quotes support the novel's ideology. The notion that understanding differentiates people "in the know" and those "outside" is one of the basic principles of the series. Only a few chosen know the real truth, while the rest belong to the ignorant masses. This is a basic elitist statement, and it's something that Kvothe embodies. The framing story abides it too, with it's contrast of the parochial villagers and the well-educated trio of Kvothe, Bast, and Chronicler. This same principle can be seen in how the text misunderstands stories: according to Rothfuss, the value of the story isn't in the story itself, but in the secret it conceals. For example, the vague allusions and hints in the overwrought historical myths. Even the book itself is littered with foreshadowing and hints to mysteries for really dull people might comb through. Kvothe being a terrible person is an element of authenticity in otherwise deceitful text. The novel as a whole doesn't support a satirical reading, which ties into the next point. Kvothe changes roles, and sometimes he explicitly plays a role, but you're missing the larger context: what is Kvothe's character? It's the greatest irony of The Name of the Wind: despite the vast volume of pages to characterise Kvothe, he's very poorly defined. He's a sometimes-prickly innkeeper-performer-magician-assassin-broken man-genius polymath-occasional braggart. One of the reasons for this is the complete lack of social context for his character. I've pointed out that the Edema Ruh are self-defeating as a concept, well-educated liberals who are also a marginalized itinerant ethnic group. In the Tarbean sequence you can simply say that he's a street urchin, but what is he in the University? An assertive teenage genius prodigy polymath penniless gypsy middle-class musician apprentice wizard artisan artist. Let's consider A Song of Ice and Fire, that great masterwork of fantasy schlock, as a counter-example. What is Eddard Stark's character? He's a gruff and extremely principled nobleman and kind loving father. Tyrion Lannister? An intelligent but unjustly maligned dwarf and black sheep of a ruthless noble clan. Simple, really. I emphasised their social context because no matter what Harry S. Plinkett tells you, that's an important part of characterization. The whole novel is generally lacking in social context. The book has no real understanding or insight of communities. The vast majority of the people simply mill around as a faceless mass. It's not hard to notice how barely anything happens in the world without Kvothe being directly involved. The framing story speaks of a conflict in the Great Off-Page Wastes, but there's no wars or civil unrest that impact the bulk of the narrative. There are no politics or political controversies, no religious or social movements. There is no political, social, or economic changes during the course of the novel. There are no famous people aside from Kvothe. Anything of importance happened a thousand years ago "in the mists of Flashback". The world is almost wholly static except for Kvothe does. The Church is somewhat active, so Skarpi was arrested. The Chandrian attacked a farm. That is the scope of what happens outside of Kvothe's involvement (yet he's still there!). The text ends up supporting Kvothe's narcissism. If you can forgive some pop-criticism: Magpiewhotypes posted:Rothfuss has stripped out the story elements that might in the smallest way keep the reader from relating Kvothe’s experiences back to his own. There are no other viewpoints, so the reader doesn’t have to consider the experiences of a person who is not a young-ish dude. And there is no big bad, so the reader doesn’t have to think about priorities other than himself and the emotional resonance of his own experiences. Anything outside of Kvothe that isn’t something that Kvothe can prove himself better than or bone is an inconvenience. Remember how jivjov said that the world of Kingkiller is interesting because Rothfuss writes about there being different currencies? Notice he didn't say that the world is interesting because of anything that happens in it. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Remember how jivjov said that the world of Kingkiller is interesting because Rothfuss writes about there being different currencies? Notice he didn't say that the world is interesting because of anything that happens in it. This is, no poo poo, something Rothfuss asserts himself in this week's My Brother, My Brother and Me. He basically says that his interest in economy is what makes his world feel more real. Interview starts about half an hour in, and his parenting stories say a lot about him as a person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
He really missed his calling as a foreign currency broker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
How does this make the book bad? I still don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
I Own Soulz posted:How does this make the book bad? I still don't get it. 1. The book is anti-democratic. 2. The book very bad at characterization. 3. The book supports narcissism and solipsism. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Only number 2 makes it a bad book though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
I won't deny, it's certainly a glimpse into American narcissism, but again the whole novel doesn't support that reading. It's an authentic element in an otherwise garbage text. e: Benvenuto Cellini was an actual narcissistic murderer, but even he admits that there are things in the world not contingent of him, and he generally acknowledges that people lead their own lives. For example, you've all probably noticed that Kvothe's friends (or enemies, for that matter) at the University don't actually do anything on their own. They're almost extensions of Kvothe. Cellini also cares about people only as far as they relate to him, as zealous admirers or jealous idiots, but that's because he's an actual narcissist. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
With a (more?) competent writer Kvothe's acting background and constant shifting of tone could be made to work. He's a child playing at roles filtered through the worldview of outsider playwrights. His actions should be odd and over the top, yet seemingly more authentic than reality. All he was ever taught was how to play a variety of roles for the entertainment of others. Or perhaps the revelation (at the end of book one at latest) could have been that Kvothe was not a singular person. Kote was merely the lovestruck hanger on to a group larger than life. Or perhaps the child of such a group's member. That gives more time for deeds to become legend, explains the drastic shifting tones, and the ridiculously broad set of prodigy level talents. Instead we get... this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Oh god... the Song of Ice and Fire thread talking about how its now been 5 years since A Dance with Dragons reminded me that its also somehow been five years since The Wise Man's Fear came out. As far as I can tell the only progress that's been made on it is that Rothfuss is now kinda a jerk to people asking when the next book is coming out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
He also released that Bast short story that I actually liked. Maybe Rothfuss should follow Stephen King and write a ton of short stories.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:He also released that Bast short story that I actually liked. Maybe Rothfuss should follow Stephen King and write a ton of short stories. He also released the Slow Regard of Silent things though...
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:1. The book is anti-democratic. Classicism (usually implicit), narcissism, and poor characterization are hallmarks of the fantasy genre. The hero cycle itself tends to emphasize the Great Man interpretation of history. In David Edding's Belgariad series, almost every main character is one dimensional, and more of an archetype than a person. Anyone not a main character is a racial stereotype, with each people of each nation explicitly having the same characteristics, right down to "being evil." The world revolves around a wizard, a sorceress, and one person, and only they can really change things. Another series I can't recall the name of has a peasant uprising, but they all turn out to have been tricked by the evil bad guy, and their grievances as a permanent underclass are ignored. The Redwall series has the same thing--only heroes can make changes, all races have immutable types. All rats are inherently evil, even if raised in a "good" setting, all mice are good, etc. The idea that the world is static except for great heroes is pervasive in almost all fantasy; the idea that there is a permanent underclass is usually taken for granted, and characters are often archetypes or stereotypes with little depth. This isn't to say that Rothfuss didn't screw up; I agree that his treatment of class is pretty crappy. I like that he tries to address it, but of course, he demonstrates its an issue he really doesn't understand. I agree that there is certainly more room for other characters to act. Kvothe does pretty much say that as far as he's concerned, the world revolves around him, so it's not surprising the story focuses almost exclusively on his actions. Rothfuss did need to do a better job subverting that claim--making clear that it doesn't, and other people have their own goals, motivations, and lives. I think he tried this, but only with Denna, and could have done a better job there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
As someone who was barely aware Rothfuss existed before tripping over this thread a few months ago, I think that everyone's just being very in-depth about a very simple and common issue in writing, namely, trying to characterize a blatant power fantasy. Of course Kvothe has basically no set character and just morphs into whatever he's meant to be in whatever given situation - the one common thread in his character is "better than everyone else." He's the reader's avatar smugly dunking on everyone who ever made fun of them in high school. Bad writing is filled with his type. It looks like the only thing distinguishing him is the ostensible framing device in the story (I say "ostensible" because as Lamps has pointed out this poo poo is really not how a first-person recollection is supposed to work, Kvothe is such a bore and has such perfect recollection of irrelevant minutiae that in a more reasonable story the Chronicler would feel like the narrator of "The Jumping Frog of Calaveras County" times a thousand), which adds a thin, flimsy layer of plausible deniability to all his self-aggrandizing bullshit. Like, the only other big fantasy series I've read is Discworld, so let's compare one of the obvious suspects from that series. Sam Vimes starts as a miserable drunken washout cop and ends as landed nobility with an idyllic family life and a sterling reputation, but from start to finish he never loses the central thread of his character - he's a cynical, temperamental, anti-authoritarian bastard. That thread informs everything he does, good and bad. He's a staunch adherent to the law because he thinks following an abstract concept is better than following the plump assholes who claim to represent it, he's feared and detested in equal measure by pretty much everyone outside the police force (and a lot of people inside it, too) because he suspects everyone of some criminal activity at all times, he's a loving family man because he's morbidly convinced his life will turn to poo poo if he lets his attention slip from it for even one day. Sure, he's basically a sendup of the usual cowboy-cop cliche at heart, but his consistency of character still makes him compelling to read. A more literary example is Doctor Rieux from Camus' The Plague (just finished it, very nice) who's a close study in how someone can be a benevolent healer despite, and in some cases because of, a near-total lack of actual compassion. These characters' virtues and vices gently caress them over and raise them up in equal measure. Kvothe, and other wish-fulfillment protagonists, don't ever have that problem, because the narrative just rearranges itself around them to always paint them in the best possible light. People who read these stories usually aren't interested in deep examination of the nature of man or whatever, they just want to self-insert themselves into these bland, bland people and get a little relief from their day. It seems like a lot of the ire towards Rothfuss comes from his pretensions that he's more high-minded than that (he isn't) and the understanding that the frame device actually serves as a subversion of the usual self-insert cliches (it doesn't). His writing doesn't have the energy of pulp or the cogency of "literature," whatever the hell the latter term means these days. It's a tedious, self-deluding mess. Oxxidation fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
I try to avoid obvious answers, but that's pretty much it. The most exceptional part is the sheer mind-numbing volume of it, so it seems there's always more to it. My true mission is to free the thread from its obsession with thee spectre of Rothfuss. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Classicism (usually implicit), narcissism, and poor characterization are hallmarks of the fantasy genre. The hero cycle itself tends to emphasize the Great Man interpretation of history. In David Edding's Belgariad series, almost every main character is one dimensional, and more of an archetype than a person. Anyone not a main character is a racial stereotype, with each people of each nation explicitly having the same characteristics, right down to "being evil." The world revolves around a wizard, a sorceress, and one person, and only they can really change things. Another series I can't recall the name of has a peasant uprising, but they all turn out to have been tricked by the evil bad guy, and their grievances as a permanent underclass are ignored. The Redwall series has the same thing--only heroes can make changes, all races have immutable types. All rats are inherently evil, even if raised in a "good" setting, all mice are good, etc. The idea that the world is static except for great heroes is pervasive in almost all fantasy; the idea that there is a permanent underclass is usually taken for granted, and characters are often archetypes or stereotypes with little depth. This isn't to say that Rothfuss didn't screw up; I agree that his treatment of class is pretty crappy. I like that he tries to address it, but of course, he demonstrates its an issue he really doesn't understand. I agree that there is certainly more room for other characters to act. Kvothe does pretty much say that as far as he's concerned, the world revolves around him, so it's not surprising the story focuses almost exclusively on his actions. Rothfuss did need to do a better job subverting that claim--making clear that it doesn't, and other people have their own goals, motivations, and lives. I think he tried this, but only with Denna, and could have done a better job there. Basically you seem to be going "at least he's not bad as these" but that's not exactly a strong argument; it's like claiming that he treats women better than Piers Anthony. Sure, but so does just about everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
1. It's kind of sad to try to normalize flaws instead of just admitting that the book is bad. 2. That's a really bad overview of fantasy as a genre. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Jul 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
SpacePig posted:This is, no poo poo, something Rothfuss asserts himself in this week's My Brother, My Brother and Me. He basically says that his interest in economy is what makes his world feel more real. Interview starts about half an hour in, and his parenting stories say a lot about him as a person. I really wish his kid has just been loving with him to get guilt-presents.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:My true mission is to free the thread from its obsession with thee spectre of Rothfuss. By obsessively re-reading his works and posting pages-long screeds scrutinizing every word, metaphor and allusion. Owned, losers. *furtively re-reads passages to post and critique*
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Former Everything posted:By obsessively re-reading his works and posting pages-long screeds scrutinizing every word, metaphor and allusion. Praise be BotL for he hath delivered us all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Former Everything posted:By obsessively re-reading his works and posting pages-long screeds scrutinizing every word, metaphor and allusion. That's to help people move past the memes. There are flaws that people haven't even recognized because they've been too busy with memes. e: Also, it's been three months, and this is all you came up with? BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Jul 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Former Everything posted:By obsessively re-reading his works and posting pages-long screeds scrutinizing every word, metaphor and allusion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
I have no illusions about this thread, I know that actually expending this amount of effort on the books me the world's first and only Kingkiller fan, this is something I accepted last February.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Haha, critical analysis of a literary work? More like shiteral anal-sis of a shiterary work! *farts into a library book return slot* Seriously, though, him backing up his claim that the book is bad by posting specific examples is better than just saying "It's (not) good because I (don't) like it", which is basically what every other argument boils down to. I'm looking forward to Chicken Wing's (I think?) counter-analysis of Lamps'. SpacePig fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Jul 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
SpacePig posted:Seriously, though, him backing up his claim that the book is bad by posting specific examples is better than just saying "It's (not) good because I (don't) like it", which is basically what every other argument boils down to. I'm looking forward to Chicken Wing's (I think?) counter-analysis of Lamps'. Which I swear is going to happen I just need to finish the current series I'm on so probably see you when BotL is finished WMF  Malazan Book of the Fallen is really good you guys
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:Malazan Book of the Fallen is really good you guys
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
So, I went to look that up, and it sounds interesting, but I had a question about this quote in the Wikipedia article:quote:Erikson's series is extremely complex with a wide scope, and presents the narratives of a large cast of characters spanning thousands of years across multiple continents. So, are the narrative shifts like A Song of Ice and Fire where it's almost constantly switching between a whole bunch of characters in every book, or is it more like Foundation where it's smaller, self-contained stories in a more sprawling narrative? I know this seems like a weird question, but I hard a hard time reading ASoIF past A Game of Thrones because it was switching between 8 or 9 protagonists at any given time. I'm a functional child when it comes to reading, so my attention span is sort of limited.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:That's to help people move past the memes. There are flaws that people haven't even recognized because they've been too busy with memes. I thought you said it was to NotObsessedAtAll posted:free the thread from its obsession
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Former Everything posted:I thought you said it was to Those aren't mutually exclusive. You're flailing around madly trying to own someone. It's a mug's game. Like do you want to discuss the books someyhing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
SpacePig posted:So, I went to look that up, and it sounds interesting, but I had a question about this quote in the Wikipedia article: Yes. The series has a number of "casts" of characters. Each book centers around 2-3 of these casts. This is one of the major complaints detractors have about the series - by book 4 you've been introduced to like 8 groups, plus assorted Dramatis Personae, and some people have trouble keeping track of it all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 19:37
|
|