|
I have to admit the golden boy protagonist stuff was a detraction, but that's more a criticism of the overused model than his execution of it. That and the huge middle segment that sounded like LJ entries of a struggling college student. Every mini chapter might've well ended with "Current mood: angsty at being rejected by social circles. Current funds: 24 farthings and 3 jots". That being said, he had some very bright moments and he's got strength with themes and storytelling, which is perfect for fantasy. I'm hoping he'll shake loose of a lot of the new writer trappings because there's good potential: Flesh out and lean on a series of minor characters (and their interactions and reactions! that's the payoff), shorten up those long tedious segments, put a new spin or two on the whole superman protagonist (he may already have this coming down the line). I'll definitely be picking up the sequel. Oh and don't turn into robert jordan / GRRM
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
I think his big mistake was a lack of supporting roles. I get that this book is 99% an autobiographical dictation, and therefore of course the main focus is going to be on that guy and the perspective clearly fixed on him, but from a story perspective he's sort of backed himself into a corner as far as who does what, and what happens to whom. Almost 100% of any conflict we come across is directed at Kvoth or affects him. All the conflict resolution involves him (and quite often involves him exclusively). Factor in that he's the ONE PERSON that we already know the outcome for (broadly speaking) and it makes the storytelling a little tiresome. As the above people are saying, it becomes a very conceited plot and even though there's a gain of salt in there about him being the one giving the story, the book in general is making an all-in investment on that conceited plot; there was almost nothing else going on. For anyone who's read it, I'm reminded of Kellhus from the Prince of Nothing trilogy by R Scott Bakker. There are some differences, ie. Kellhus is much more of an ambivalent hero/villain and all around emotionless manipulative dickhead whom the reader winds up disliking (on purpose by the author). But in some other respects he is very similar to Kvothe, as in he is absolutely peerless when it comes to just about every aspect of fantasy novel main character traits that you could care to come up with. I'll very broadly summarize the plot but put it in spoilers anyway: He starts out as a nobody and through the books rises to lead nations and control armies, which feels like a similar path Kvothe is taking, although not point-for-point the same. In that trilogy, however, Kellhus is established as the kind of person he is, and then after that he is left to his own devices and the book spends only a proportional amount of time following him, with the rest being spent on other characters who are very influential and important, but in terms of world events are considerably more minor compared to Kellhus. While he's the big central character to the plot, the reader has an equal if not greater understanding of less impactful characters like Cnaiur and Achamian. As of now, there's really not that much strength behind supporting characters in The Name of the Wind. In story mode, the moneylender girl has some color, his schoolmates too but they're all sort of amorphous and interchangable. his  MY GIRLFRIEND is hard to get to know because every time she comes up he star-- MY GIRLFRIEND . In current events things look a little better, and I hope to god the next book focuses way more on what's going on there. Ok this is getting long but anyway yes the first book has problems and in my mind it's largely due to a lack of characters there to support the big hero. Bhaal fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Nov 22, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2010 18:47
|
|