|
Number Ten Cocks posted:The Seanchan had all kinds. The imperial family seemed more Indian than black. Shara had black people. The Seanchan having multiple ethnicities all mixed together actually makes them more interesting than just being the black race since it's way more realistic for an empire to have multiple ethnic groups within its borders. But the imperial family were pretty much explicitly black, not that it had any impact on the story beyond the description of the characters.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 11:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
This thread just ate a bunch of my free time this week since peeps in the fantasy megathread linked me to BravestOfTheLamps's analysis, and there were lots of funny and/or insightful posts in between. Had to post some recognition for the goon a dozen pages ago who broke down the fake Ruh scene, or the goon who did the feminist breakdown of the books, and the one dude's hilarious reactions to the second book. A lot of thought provoking reading about writing, storytelling and a lot of laughrage at the weirdness of these books. Also shitposts, but hey. I never bothered with Wise Man's Fear after NOTW (which I hated and spent much time trying to figure out if I was crazy because so many other people liked it) so all the fairy sex level up, titninja, Rape Hero business and the continuing lack of story are things I can delight in as an outsider without actually having to read. Which is nice! Still can't get over how good that tiny excerpt of Oliver Twist BOTL posted was, and how it just makes all the dry descriptions of Tarbean look like pointless garbage. Like presumably 50% of fantasy genre readers, I'm an unpublished writer of my own lovely fantasy novel and that section gave me some new critical perspective on the depths of my bad writing. Then again, if Name Of The Wind - a consuming void where a book or story should have been - was a bestseller, maybe there's hope for the rest of us! (And maybe that was the wrong lesson to take from this.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
That's a very good thing to take away from it. Go get yours VagueRant! Just if you make it big, don't become a self important poo poo head.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:This thread just ate a bunch of my free time this week since peeps in the fantasy megathread linked me to BravestOfTheLamps's analysis, and there were lots of funny and/or insightful posts in between. Had to post some recognition for the goon a dozen pages ago who broke down the fake Ruh scene, or the goon who did the feminist breakdown of the books, and the one dude's hilarious reactions to the second book. A lot of thought provoking reading about writing, storytelling and a lot of laughrage at the weirdness of these books. Also shitposts, but hey. RIght on fellow poo poo-writer-who-still-knows-the-good-stuff :hifive: . All I can tell you is continue to read: fiction in your genre, out of it, high-fallutin' important books, dreck, nonfiction you're interested in and stuff you've never really considered before and of course all the critical theory you can stomach, though feel free to abandon the poo poo there. Being widely read is one of the most important things to writing, the other is drawing from experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukk5TJL27pE The biggest thing is to tell when tropes are used in service to a story and when they are running through the motions, as touched on in the video above. Good writing says something about people, bad writing says what they think they're supposed to say at that time. That's not to say abandon structure entirely, or to abandon characters with somewhat mythic qualities to them, but make sure it's about something. Kingkiller tries to be about how stories shape and alter our world but it falls flat because he focuses almost entirely on human being's tendency to take events, give narrative to them after the fact and the all serve the plot in some long run rather than any of its themes: both it's narrative conceit of a man telling his story to a scribe and the main goal of Kvothe throughout the novel (technically) is to sort through myth to find out the truth, and I think the narrative conceit here completely destroys any chance of that being doable. If it was a scribe taking down an untrustworthy heroes adventure OR a scholar with a bad past seeking out old truths from myth it could have been something more, and in my mind the latter may have made for a much tighter narrative. So you've got a man trying to sort truth from bullshit from a man who tried to sort truth from bullshit, and at that point why should we give a gently caress, because having two veils to ward through like that makes it so that the best an authour of Rothfuss' talent(admitably not bad for a first time authour but in serious need to rethinking, rewriting and general poo poo-trimming) is to gently caress with expectations of a reader of how a fantasy novel is supposed to go down without really straying from the familiar because that's what he knows: nerd poo poo, studying obscure folklore and trying to figure it out and taste for writing poetic english (which while rough, is there. I think Rothfuss could be a fantastic prose writer if he really put his nose to the grindstone). It doesn't really say anything about humanity because Rothfuss, especially in writing in a genre he is so obviously familiar with, defaults to what is expected of a book like his to say instead of what it actually can say.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Btw, there was a link in the SF/Fantasy thread to what is probably the only decent professional review of NOTW. I'd read it years ago but could never find it. It's just too soft because the author doesn't want to be harsh (which it still is).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
This thread is a good thread because you'd get recommendations. For every "I thought about reading this" you get several people saying "STOP DON'T DO IT" then list off a few books that are a million times better, or at least in their opinions they are. I read Lud-in-the-Mist because of this thread and it skyrocketed to one of my favorite books I've ever read. If you want beautiful prose and really flowery descriptions of things written by an actual poet and characters with depth and flaws and strengths all while being wrapped around a fantasy with actual wonder. I highly recommend that book. Rothfuss's trite doesn't even come close to that book. Having read Rothfuss long before Hope Mirrlees the contrasting quality between the two is extremely apparent. Rothfuss descriptions come off as nonsense while Hope Mirrlees are actually poet and paint a vivid picture. It's also a good book to expand your vocabulary. People don't use words like rotund or rubicund anymore. This is a paragraph in which she describes the protagonist of the story Nathaniel Chanticleer quote:Master Nathaniel Chanticleer, the actual head of the family, was a typical Dorimarite in appearance; rotund, rubicund, red-haired, with hazel eyes in which the jokes, before he uttered them, twinkled like a trout in a burn. Spiritually, too, he passed for a typical Dorimarite; though, indeed, it is never safe to classify the souls of one's neighbors; one is apt, in the long run, to be proved a fool. You should regard each meeting with a friend as a sitting he is unwittingly giving you for a portrait - a portrait that, probably, when you or he die, will still be unfinished. And, though this is an absorbing pursuit, nevertheless, the painters are apt to end pessimists. For however handsome and merry may be the face, however rich may be the background, in the first rough sketch of each portrait, yet with every added stroke of the brush, with ever tiny readjustment of the "values," with ever modification of the chiaroscuro, the eyes looking out at you grow more disquieting. And, finally, it is your own face that you are staring at in terror, as in a mirror by candle-light, when all the house is still.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Good god that's bleak. The blurb made it sound like some twee hobbity story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Btw, there was a link in the SF/Fantasy thread to what is probably the only decent professional review of NOTW. I'd read it years ago but could never find it. It's just too soft because the author doesn't want to be harsh (which it still is). "Cosy" is the most goddamned perfect word for the appeal of this series. Dude nailed it
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Btw, there was a link in the SF/Fantasy thread to what is probably the only decent professional review of NOTW. I'd read it years ago but could never find it. It's just too soft because the author doesn't want to be harsh (which it still is). This is a pro-click because of in depth discussion of Tolkien's use of language in the Children of Hurin and how it demonstrates a heroism that has a great deal more depth than Kvothe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:Good god that's bleak. The blurb made it sound like some twee hobbity story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
What is the point of Chronicler in these books? The guy doesn't put his own spin on the story--Kvothe does that on his own. We aren't given the fun of questioning which truth is the real truth and which is storytelling embellishment, because Kvothe is both the hero and the storyteller, while Chronicler is simply the hand writing down exactly what Kvothe says. After two mammoth books, Chronicler's character has not affected the story beyond his very first appearance, which is what apparently sets Kvothe on the path of narrating his life story (and Bast hopes by doing so, Kvothe will heal himself). But if you removed Chronicler and put Bast as the person who convinced Kvothe to do the retelling, literally nothing would change. The story would probably be much stronger because all of Bast's emotions and the redundant Chronicler character could be collapsed into a single arc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Chronicler is the audience surrogate, bright eyed, intelligent, learned, and eager to swallow everything Kvothe says and does. He's psychologically a great trick, given the target audience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
He's both an audience surrogate and Rothfuss' excuse to have Kvothe disgorge his life's story within the context of the framing story while also underlining that he's so exceptional that a writer so famous he's known as the Chronicler has been chomping at the bit to get his story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
I read this series in highschool, and liked it. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
I read a lot of really terrible fantasy in high school. Most of us did. It's okay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Yeah, it's no Conan the Libertarian or Body Made For Rape.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
It is Fine and OK to like books that have flaws, even deep, glaring ones hth
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:It is Fine and OK to like books that have flaws, even deep, glaring ones hth You wouldn't say that about Mein Kampf.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
0 to godwin in 6 minutes, not bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
CerealCrunch posted:You wouldn't say that about a Terry Goodkind fantasy novel
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
I also found the Sword of Truth series very enjoyable when I last read it in high school. Bad books can still be entertaining~
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Yes but NotW is not entertaining, and has pretensions of literary merit that are more annoying than if it was dumb schlock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
As has been demonstrated, The Kingkiller Chronicle is extremely unentertaining. This is what people like about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:As has been demonstrated, The Kingkiller Chronicle is extremely unentertaining. This is what people like about it. You have demonstrated that Rothfuss is a mediocre author. Otherwise, I seem to remember you making this argument and me not really agreeing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
His books are stretched-out, unimaginative pedantry, i.e. not entertaining and exactly the stuff that fantasy readers love.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:His books are stretched-out, unimaginative pedantry, i.e. not entertaining and exactly the stuff that fantasy readers love. I'm pretty sure those people are in fact entertained by the books.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Andrast posted:I'm pretty sure those people are in fact entertained by the books. Doubtful, not one has ever actually managed to describe what makes the books entertaining. Even professional reviewers falter here. The books are extremely easy to read, but this should not be confused with entertainment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Doubtful, not one has ever actually managed to describe what makes the books entertaining. Even professional reviewers falter here. People are generally bad at explaining why they like certain things, especially people who like garbage like these books
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The books are extremely easy to read, but this should not be confused with entertainment. The popularity of the book legitimately mystifies me. Solice Kirsk posted:That's a very good thing to take away from it. Go get yours VagueRant! Just if you make it big, don't become a self important poo poo head. ...Oh, sorry, I don't know what overcame me there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:The next book will be out when it's good and finished! gently caress you! Buy my board game! I guess people who want you to write your first book just don't care about charity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:The popularity of the book legitimately mystifies me. I actually saw a version of your game when you were playing it while I was delivering a pizza to your house. Remember how I was instantly struck by how beautiful and original it was and how everything seemed to be put together in a very thought out and amazing way? I look forward to buying and playing your game for years to come with all of my friends. This is a thing that actually happened. We really did that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Speculating about what a bad person and liar Rothfuss must be is kind of creepy, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Andrast posted:People are generally bad at explaining why they like certain things, especially people who like garbage like these books For example, see anyone in this thread, including me at the start, who had praise and fondness for the book before being forced to actually think about them realized that there is nothing below the surface of the writing and fancy prose and long winded descriptions fall apart when reading contextually and then thought about for a few seconds. For an unrepentant bad reader just follow jivjov's angry descent into "well then why don't you write a book!" before promising to read the books for the 11th time to spite the thread for challenging them on it. My favorite critique of the books I've read here was the comments about how Rothfuss writes about music like a music fan would but not an actual musician, and many of the scenes and flowing prose about music are pretty poo poo and show a fundamental misunderstanding of functional music and metaphors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
And then Lin-Manuel Miranda said something like "he writes about music beautifully" and all the back-pedaling began.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
ChickenWing is right, Rothfuss is merely mediocre. Look to Terry Goodkind, who actually writes books that hammer you over your head with how evil communists, pacifists and especially the Clintons are, and where the sex content actually mostly consists of rape. Compared to that, a Mary Sue sex ninja and his relatively slight misogyny is just mediocre.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
It's an imprecise comparison, but I think Rothfuss is just a more competent Paolini. White middle-class male perspective, side-lining of women combined with a conservative perspective of sexuality, heavy use of fantasy cliches, faux-medieval setting that's inconsistently modern and not even close to genuinely medieval, attempt at prose that's beyond the skill of the author, disjointed plot structure, disproportionate popularity among younger readers (or those that do not read literary genre fiction), treated with kid gloves by reviewers and critics. Torrannor posted:
There are even authors that make Terry look good. This fellow wrote what is arguably the worst fantasy novel, and had his contract ended early cause he was so poo poo. Corvinus fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Malpais Legate posted:And then Lin-Manuel Miranda said something like "he writes about music beautifully" and all the back-pedaling began. I put my hands on the keyboard, vision swimming with rage. I inhale deeply and leave the keyboard instead. Somewhere in the United States, Rothfuss directs a guilty look at a nearby instrument but doesn't know why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:ChickenWing is right, Rothfuss is merely mediocre. Look to Terry Goodkind, who actually writes books that hammer you over your head with how evil communists, pacifists and especially the Clintons are, and where the sex content actually mostly consists of rape. Compared to that, a Mary Sue sex ninja and his relatively slight misogyny is just mediocre. Is Terry Goodkind that hardcore Objectivist or something? All these fantasy writers kind of meld together for me since I don't read any of their works but often hear about them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Terry Goodkind is the objectivist, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Corvinus posted:
I'm glad someone else remembers this guy. I picked up The Fifth Sorceress on its cover art when I was a wee lad and it's genuinely the worst book I ever read, it's like an Eye of Argon written by a bitter middle-aged MRA that actually got published and sold in major bookstores. Anyway, i'm glad his career is dead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 00:04
|
|
