|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Those aren't mutually exclusive. You're flailing around madly trying to own someone. It's a mug's game. No thanks, you're a little unhinged in your zeal regarding these books and (from what I can tell) arguing with people who don't exist, since the general opinion in this thread is that they books weren't very good. I read them several years ago and haven't really given them much thought since then, other than to wonder every few months if the next one is out yet. I'll check back in a few months to see how your crusade to end the obsession of all of those big Rothfuss fans in this thread is going, though.
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:53 |
|
|
ChickenWing posted: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 20:06
|
|
|
Nakar posted:I'm not gonna pass judgment or anything but that doesn't sound like a good thing. It's a bit of a mental endurance exercise at times but everything starts tying together nicely mid-series and the payoff is absolutely worth the investment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Former Everything posted:No thanks, you're a little unhinged in your zeal regarding these books and (from what I can tell) arguing with people who don't exist, since the general opinion in this thread is that they books weren't very good. I read them several years ago and haven't really given them much thought since then, other than to wonder every few months if the next one is out yet. You're not very good at reading things, esp. this thread. The people obsessed with bad man Rothfuss aren't Rothfuss fans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:Yes. Yeah, gosh, this doesn't sound like a series for me. Thanks for the info.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Nakar posted:I'm not gonna pass judgment or anything but that doesn't sound like a good thing. It also doesn't feel the need to explain, either explicitly or by inference, basic things about it's world. I gave up after 3 books, and still don't know where wizards come from.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
I didn't need to know where the wizards came from to enjoy it. I'll agree it's overwhelming, both with characters and the fact the entire thing is absolutely loaded with foreshadowing and connections you just won't make on the first read. e: VVV Yup. anilEhilated fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jul 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:I didn't need to know where the wizards came from to enjoy it. I'll agree it's overwhelming, both with characters and the fact the entire thing is absolutely loaded with foreshadowing and connections you just won't make on the first read. It doesn't help that the first book is also by far the worst of the lot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Andrast posted:It doesn't help that the first book is also by far the worst of the lot. Luckily, the second is probably the best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:I didn't need to know where the wizards came from to enjoy it. I'll agree it's overwhelming, both with characters and the fact the entire thing is absolutely loaded with foreshadowing and connections you just won't make on the first read. I like to have some sort of grounding for my characters. Every man and his dog is a wizard of some form or other, and he blathers on incoherently about the mechanics of magic (Quick Ben "folds his warrens inside each other" whatever the gently caress that means) but never feels the need to engage with how characters relate to magic. Does it require years of intense study? Is it some sort of innate gift? Have they stared long into the abyss? Do they apply made-up scientific principles to it? There's mages in all walks of life, rich, poor, noble, priest - but only ever in dribs and drabs. Where are the schools? Where are the teachers, the philosophers? Magic absolutely saturates his setting, but it's never more than some poorly explained macguffin. The closest we get to someone feeling an emotion about magic is book one's "oh golly gosh Miss Tattersail, it sure is handy how you can hurl fireballs" vvvvvvvvv Oh there's detail. Bucketloads of it. Vast sweeping gallons of it, gushing out of every orifice. "The warren of the Mag'rit Tha'Char, which was destroyed ten thousand and seven years ago by the Consa T'i'ves who coveted the throne of E'ealrazul, and interbred with the Bragan D'che Ch'sha'a', who may or may not be insects, we don't really know" It's like someone was critical of how Sanderson goes into vast detail explaining the mechanics of his magic system, and decided that the only problem was the actual explaining bit. Strom Cuzewon fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Jul 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Controversial opinion in the Rothfuss thread: it's good and not bad that there's not unreasonable amounts of detail put into things that don't require unreasonable amounts of detail. Like, for instance, magic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:I like to have some sort of grounding for my characters. Every man and his dog is a wizard of some form or other, and he blathers on incoherently about the mechanics of magic (Quick Ben "folds his warrens inside each other" whatever the gently caress that means) but never feels the need to engage with how characters relate to magic. Does it require years of intense study? Is it some sort of innate gift? Have they stared long into the abyss? Do they apply made-up scientific principles to it? There's mages in all walks of life, rich, poor, noble, priest - but only ever in dribs and drabs. Where are the schools? Where are the teachers, the philosophers? What is genuinely confusing is the religion overlap but I rather suspect that's the way the cults (and gods) prefer it. edit: Oh, and to make it even more interesting, the prequel trilogy he's currently writing book 3 of deals with establishing magic quite a bit as well. Fairly sure it's supposed to be confusing and that doesn't necessarily detract from it. anilEhilated fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Jul 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:Controversial opinion in the Rothfuss thread: it's good and not bad that there's not unreasonable amounts of detail put into things that don't require unreasonable amounts of detail. Like, for instance, magic. Explaining how magic works, no need to spend lots of details. Explaining the relationship between an individual and magic, magic and society, and those who practice magic and society, super important. I'm not interested in how may runes need to be stuck on a piece of metal to turn it into a ministove. I want to know if these people are common, if people outside the university practice it in different forms, how these magical devices change society, who gets to make these decisions on what is and isn't released, and so on and so on. Rothfuss is super terrible at this and world building in general. His comments on economy are laughable when you compare him to his contemporaries.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Patrick Rothfuss is the favorite writer of that dude who's just discovered that there are novels that are totally like D&D n poo poo man
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Patrick Rothfuss is the favorite writer of that dude who's just discovered that there are novels that are totally like D&D n poo poo man This was basically it for me. I hadn't really read much fantasy before NotW, and had it recommended to me as a genuinely good book, outside of just being a good fantasy novel. I'm not going to necessarily say that I've matured as a reader, but WMF made me kind of second guess what I thought of NotW. I'm slowly starting to realize that I may not like actual fantasy novels, and instead like D&D stories.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
SpacePig posted:This was basically it for me. I hadn't really read much fantasy before NotW, and had it recommended to me as a genuinely good book, outside of just being a good fantasy novel. I'm not going to necessarily say that I've matured as a reader, but WMF made me kind of second guess what I thought of NotW. I'm slowly starting to realize that I may not like actual fantasy novels, and instead like D&D stories. It's been recommended a bunch in this thread but if you are having doubts about fantasy go read The Book of the New Sun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:Fairly sure it's supposed to be confusing and that doesn't necessarily detract from it. It really does though. I guess I have two related criticisms 1) The system is incoherent. The whole idea of Warrens, with distinct natures, that are shared between groups along ideological or cultural lines, is really loving cool. But beyond that we're not given any decent explanation of how or why warrens behave the way they do. In itself this isn't a problem (hosed if I know how Gandalf does his stuff), but when so much of the books - I'm thinking the nature of the Imperial warren and its relation to Kallandor, whatever the gently caress happens with Tellan,Omtose Phellack and the Crippled God - is entirely about the functioning of the magic system, it's a massive hinderance to understanding what's going on. If it was portrayed as a big unknown mystery I would be okay with it, but all the characters act as if they're the ones who have figured it all out, and they're all proven wrong before too long. Which paints the vast majority of them as incompetent bloody morons (see also: the t'lan imass who can't tell the difference between a tower built by not-orcs, and one built by loving dinosaurs) 2) Nobody is actually affected by magic. Magic in Malazan is one of the major driving forces of the story - the warren of chaos in Dragnipur (how can a warren be in a sword and also elsewhere? doesn't matter, just roll with it) - but it's weirdly inert in terms of characterization. There's mages all over the show, but the fact that they're mages is entirely divorced from their characters - like so much of Malazans pseudo-worldbuilding its something that's just blandly presented as fact, but never feels like it ties in to anything. When a mage can be anything from a semi-pope (Karnadas), to a blue collar soldier (Hedge) to an immortal Drizzt rip off (you know who I mean) then the fact of being a mage no longer adds anything to the story. Compare it to Prince of Nothing, where both the social positioning of mages, and the philsophical/theological implications of sorcery are absolutely integral to Achamians character. In Malazan being a mage is utterly inconsequential. And if you say it's something that is foreshadowing a later book, or is explained in a yet-to-be-written prequel then I will throw my loving shoe at you. Because after reading seven hundred thousands words of this dross I don't think I'm being unreasonable in saying that poo poo should loving makes some sort of sense. And it doesn't. Malazan is literally madlibs. It;s an unending stream of meaningless nonsense that gets praised as "deep" worldbuilding because he writes about it like an anthropologist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
And before you ask - yes I have discussed this with my therapist. Because it worries me how much Malazan bothers me. It bothers me a lot. Like, BravestOfTheLamps is fuckin understated compared to how angry Malazan makes me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:And before you ask - yes I have discussed this with my therapist. Because it worries me how much Malazan bothers me. Book 2 is a legit ok read. Everything else in that series sucks balls and is exclusively for a small crowd of obsessive nerds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:Book 2 is a legit ok read. Everything else in that series sucks balls and is exclusively for a small crowd of obsessive nerds. Aren't you the dude who basically raged out of the series at book 3 because of the utter ridiculousness of a wolf god inhabiting a wolf
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Not me. I just thought the characters were weak, the tone shifts were jarring, the magic system with the canoe boat thing that developed at the ending was really dumb. There was a lot of talk about characters being awesomely powerful, but very little follow through. Too many council scenes. I had a hard time caring or visualizing the velociraptors with sword arms. The large scale time jump in the prologue didn't work for me on any meaningful level. But worst, it was boring.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:It's been recommended a bunch in this thread but if you are having doubts about fantasy go read The Book of the New Sun. If this was my first fantasy book, I would never read fantasy again. It's like "here's a fantasy element that could be interesting. Nope, on to something else and that will never be explained for the rest of the book. You'll have to reread to have any clue what is going on." And the author wrote a follow up book to explain it to all non-genius level readers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Fantasy has some inexplicable elements? Well I never 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
That has got to be the greatest worst criticism of Gene Wolfe I've ever read.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Inexplicable weird poo poo is actually really good and a million times better than obsessively quantified 'systems led' fantasy universes
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
They both have their place as long as they are done well (so, not Rothfuss).
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
The next entry has a good example when NOTW features what amounts to a D&D encounter (again). I hope you've all found this journey therapeutic so far. The more I understand The Kingkiller Chronicle the less it and the spectre of Rothfuss haunt me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The next entry has a good example when NOTW features what amounts to a D&D encounter (again). I see what you mean, but I am still a little confused about why it got so much mainstream acclaim and attention. Not that the bulk of the fantasy genre is amazing literature or anything, but I just finished reading Abercrombie's First Law trilogy and found it to be really engaging fantasy pulp. Compared to Kingkiller, it clips along at a good pace, has memorable characters, and some sense of an overall thematic purpose to the story. If I didn't know already how popular Kingkiller Chronicles is, I would have expected it to get buried by some series similar to the First Law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Understanding has made me more mellow, and less inclined to judge and write screeds about the degradation of literature, but it really just boils down to the reviewing establishment being kind of poo poo. e: If you read reviews of The Name of the Wind for example, it's kind of obvious that it's being judged more as a product than an artwork. Features: wit, magic, world-building. Satisfaction guaranteed. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jul 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
In one of the CRPG threads (I think it was the Baldur's Gate one) in Games people were talking about old D&D novels that weren't garbage and Azure Bonds came up. It's actually really well written. Moves briskly along, has a good mystery at the center of all the D&D adventuring and action. It's pulpy but a light read and fun. Can't say the same for the other two books that make up the trilogy, though. Fell off severely with the second book. It even comes with embarrassing 90's fantasy cover art! (the protagonist, who is the lady on the cover, only wears that poo poo very briefly and it's explained why)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Grenrow posted:I see what you mean, but I am still a little confused about why it got so much mainstream acclaim and attention. Not that the bulk of the fantasy genre is amazing literature or anything, but I just finished reading Abercrombie's First Law trilogy and found it to be really engaging fantasy pulp. Compared to Kingkiller, it clips along at a good pace, has memorable characters, and some sense of an overall thematic purpose to the story. If I didn't know already how popular Kingkiller Chronicles is, I would have expected it to get buried by some series similar to the First Law. Marketing. Reviewers get the book and are told in a little synopsis that this is a great new writer bursting onto the scene, an amazing talent taking his collegiate efforts and spinning them into a novel with action, suspense, mystery, romance, and a dash of charm and magic. Reviewers read it and note that it does technically have all of those things, are kinder to it than they should be given that it's "just a fantasy novel" and then they support the wild claims of the marketing department who push it onto the fantasy reading public, who, if we're being honest, love to be able to say a book is for them and not for other people. Their liking it is more about their identity as a nerd than it is about good faith literary analysis. This isn't unique to nerds of course. Identity and products are closely intertwined for just about everyone. I mean, how many times were you told that you just didn't "get" Twilight because it wasn't meant for you? However, if at the end of a book you can't express in a meaningful way why you did or didn't like it, then you never really read it. And I think this is how most people engage with most media, be it television, movies, music, or books. It's something they do to kill a couple of hours in the evening or on their commute or whatever and then when it's done they put it on a shelf and don't think about it again. This is what BravestoftheLamps means when he says he's the only fan of Kingkiller in the world because he's the only one engaging with the text beyond a surface level.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
On the other hand I don't think readers of Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey, The True Blood books etc. were under the illusions as to what they were reading. Urban Fantasy readers are pretty happy with their niche except if you're reading Dresden in which case people are falling over backwards to distance it from the rest of it. The conversation around Rothfuss especially but exists for GRRM etc. speaks to an insecurity in how fantasy is perceived and the need for readers to hang their hat on a "literary" fantasy novel. NotW is consistently presented as this genre transcending must read book when in reality its about par for the genre. Fantasy readers don't want good books as much as they want things that check their boxes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
i squeeze out a small pale turd like a curl of mozzarella. it drops into the empress's ready mouth. my sword glints. my greaves are weathered and careworn; they have seen much and yet they know little. along the length of my erection runs a crisscross grid of scars. they are tally marks: one for each sex fairy that i've satisfied. i came from the skies and will come into the sea before my journey is done, because i intend to gently caress a mermaiden if not a shoal of them. my heart is as black as polished obsidian. my crotch is a volcano. my name is poddy rootfroth, and this is my tale.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:On the other hand I don't think readers of Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey, The True Blood books etc. were under the illusions as to what they were reading. Urban Fantasy readers are pretty happy with their niche except if you're reading Dresden in which case people are falling over backwards to distance it from the rest of it. Are they distancing urban fantasy from Dresden, or Dresden from urban fantasy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:i squeeze out a small pale turd like a curl of mozzarella. it drops into the empress's ready mouth. my sword glints. my greaves are weathered and careworn; they have seen much and yet they know little. along the length of my erection runs a crisscross grid of scars. they are tally marks: one for each sex fairy that i've satisfied. i came from the skies and will come into the sea before my journey is done, because i intend to gently caress a mermaiden if not a shoal of them. my heart is as black as polished obsidian. my crotch is a volcano. my name is poddy rootfroth, and this is my tale. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:On the other hand I don't think readers of Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey, The True Blood books etc. were under the illusions as to what they were reading. Urban Fantasy readers are pretty happy with their niche except if you're reading Dresden in which case people are falling over backwards to distance it from the rest of it. I think this is a huge part of it. I hate generalizing, but it's hard to talk about people who like a genre without doing so. That said, I think it's somewhat safe to say that people who read fantasy novels tend to self identify as nerds or geeks. One of the pillars of nerd culture is being in the know and smarter than the people around you. They have to see their books as smart because otherwise it's admitting they're doing something as low brow as people who read Dan Brown.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
The main thing I'm getting from the discussion is that NotW is supposed to be "on par" for the genre which somehow means it's not a bad book? Not sure; I read a fair bit of fantasy and still wouldn't touch Rothfuss with a ten foot pole after wherever the gently caress I gave up on WMF. Remember Sturgeon's Law? It still applies. There is good fantasy out there so I think it's pretty understandable to be miffed when the genre is represented by poo poo like Kingkiller. And it's hard to use generalizations without coming out of it looking like a condescending prick - food for thought?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:The main thing I'm getting from the discussion is that NotW is supposed to be "on par" for the genre which somehow means it's not a bad book? Not sure; I read a fair bit of fantasy and still wouldn't touch Rothfuss with a ten foot pole after wherever the gently caress I gave up on WMF. I think it is par for the course if only because of the breadth of the genre. How many hundreds of DnD books and Warhammer Fantasy novels are there? How many books about Drizzt alone were written? Kingkiller is bad in its own unique ways but it's not really worse than the majority of other fantasy books. And yeah you're right, trying to generalize without looking like a prick is tough, but I guess that's the risk you have to take when trying to distill what it is about this series that people latch onto.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:Are they distancing urban fantasy from Dresden, or Dresden from urban fantasy? Dresden from urban fantasy. I think a lot of (mostly male) readers think UF is mostly icky and don't want Dresden associated in that. Despite it pretty much being the Sookie Stackhouse books for boys. anilEhilated posted:The main thing I'm getting from the discussion is that NotW is supposed to be "on par" for the genre which somehow means it's not a bad book? Not sure; I read a fair bit of fantasy and still wouldn't touch Rothfuss with a ten foot pole after wherever the gently caress I gave up on WMF. sadly I think par for fantasy means that its a pretty awful book. NotW was recommended to me after a long break from the genre and I remember how disappointed I was if this was supposed to be the standard bearer for quality in fantasy. fantasy readers seem to want to read the same book again and again. Atlas Hugged posted:I think this is a huge part of it. I hate generalizing, but it's hard to talk about people who like a genre without doing so. That said, I think it's somewhat safe to say that people who read fantasy novels tend to self identify as nerds or geeks. One of the pillars of nerd culture is being in the know and smarter than the people around you. They have to see their books as smart because otherwise it's admitting they're doing something as low brow as people who read Dan Brown. I think this is a great point and something I was trying to articulate. The sort of arrogance that their wizard book is better than some vampire book. Of course the huge asterix is that its hard to critique how people consume entertainment if they get enjoyment out of it. It just bums me out seeing people act like Rothfuss is Nabakov and are unwilling to explore outside the genre.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:53 |
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Dresden from urban fantasy. I think a lot of (mostly male) readers think UF is mostly icky and don't want Dresden associated in that. Despite it pretty much being the Sookie Stackhouse books for boys. Odd. I can only speak to what goes on around here, because goons are the only subset of fans I can remotely tolerate, but it's more that Dresden fans fight to differentiate between urban fantasy, which includes Dresden, and paranormal romance, which would be your Sookie Stackhouses and Anita Blakes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 19:10
|
|
