|
Bullio posted:I enjoyed the book and I'm looking forward to the next one. Someone mentioned somewhere on these forums, I think either in the last thread about his book or in the quotes thread, that whenever they read it, they hear it in the voice of Zapp Brannigan. Thing is... I'm not entirely sure this is the wrong idea either. He's clearly trying to make himself good through all of this.
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2010 10:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:21 |
|
|
quote:And if you had trouble believing that Archie could have both Betty and Veronica, you may raise an eyebrow on more than one occasion in this second volume. Speaking as someone who has read Wheel of Time, there are harder concepts to swallow.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2011 06:25
|
|
|
Dammit, how is there not a single copy of this goddamn book anywhere in Winnipeg? 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2011 19:47
|
|
|
MarshallX posted:I got mine in Canada - no issues. Dunno then... there's not a copy in a single Coles, Chapters, or Indigo anywhere in Winnipeg, and you can't order it off their website, or off Amazon. I guess I could try McNally Robinson but they don't keep stock showing on their website, it's kind of out of the way for me, and the big kicker is that I can reasonably expect Chapters, etc to slash that ludicrous price by like 30%, I'm not so sure I can expect that out of the other place. And I'm not sure I really want to pay forty bucks for this thing.  fake edit: McNally has it on order still yet too. God, gently caress Winnipeg.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:Any books by anyone named Terry Terry Pratchett. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
Completely unrelatedly to almost everything, I finally got my hands on this book, and, drat, it's made from some really nice paper. I just kind of want to feel the stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 06:53
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Edit: ^^^ I hate to say it, since I have no clue who his editor is and for all I know have read other books she's edited, but this is the direction I'm leaning in, as well. I feel like there are a lot of authors out there whose writing would really suffer if it wasn't for the direction/filter of their editor, and this seems like a half-assed job. Betsy Wollheim, isn't she? She's experienced enough to have her name on the imprint at least, though I still don't know how to translate that to books she's actually worked on.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 08:26
|
|
|
syphon posted:While I like discussing plots (either to TV shows or Books) on the internet, this is a phenomena I hate. Kinda reminiscent of how Jordan RetConned the whole Demandred/Taim identity because fans figured it out really quickly. I dunno, he swore up and down that's not what happened, was apparently even surprised people thought that way. While I'm sure he wasn't above changing things around after starting, I don't think he'd lie through his teeth about it after the fact. I dunno, I think it's outright impossible that the whole of the Chandrian business will be able to be resolved in the next book if only because of Bast freaking out over Kvothe repeating the poem that names them/gives their signs. The Amyr, though... I dunno, I haven't heard a theory about them that fully satisfied me yet. I guess I'll still wait and see on that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 01:59
|
|
|
Flatscan posted:They can't have any farms or farmers either, because they'd pretty soon notice that no rams in the flock = no lambs in spring. Wasn't that very argument brought up in the book and dismissed with a handwave of 'that's animals, not people, stupid'? I mean I think not making the connection between loving and pregnancy is stupid but c'mon, going 'well didn't anyone ever think about x' when there are characters (or just one, but whatever) in the book going 'well, didn't anyone ever think about x' is just lazy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 20:49
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:her lines start with a lower case letter for no other perceptible reason than ~fey~ It says outright that they start that way because of the way she talks. I don't have the book with me so I can't get the exact line or anything. I mean it's not really a good reason but there's definitely a perceptible reason.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2011 20:10
|
|
|
Sophia posted:Not that I don't agree that his response misses the point of the criticism, but that's sort of to be expected. I mean, if you put yourself in his shoes: you've written a book that you like that includes a bunch of sex scenes with a magical fairy. You haven't read or heard any specific criticisms about that section, but some guy in a live chat tells you that criticisms exist, but does not specify what they are, and asks how you react to them. That's pretty much what I thought about it. I mean, none of his response is especially untrue, it's just not applicable to the question that was actually asked. I mean, I like sex in my books. I like gratuitous sex in my books. I eagerly await my new Jacqueline Carey books in June. I didn't really have a problem with the gratuitous sex in the Adem part of WMF. The issue I have with Felurian can be summed up in six words: "... and it goes on like this." I don't really care about how goony he is or isn't, it's just a criminal flaw in pacing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2011 16:17
|
|
|
Cheradenine posted:You've been reading the Felurian chapters too much. Yeah but you get that from reading the book once.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2011 02:47
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Is that what his line is? Used to be, I think he's more or less publically went out and said that what he'd written before needs to be gutted and redone.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2011 03:48
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:Is it weird that I always got more of a Kama Sutra sense from Felurian's names than an anime power-move name kinda thing? Well, that was probably the intent, at least. I don't know that I had really a problem with the names. Just the duration.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2011 23:56
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Because I read the first one, I enjoyed it for the most part, and I'm a bit of a completionist. I also don't really see how discussing the negative points of a book automatically means you overwhelmingly hate it and are just complaining. No, the reason people are telling you not to keep reading is that if what you found to be the only things worth mentioning about the first book to be meandering, plotless, and goony, the second book is even more meandering, plotless, and goony. If you did like the first and would enjoy more of the same, you will like WMF. But it's definitely more of the same. neongrey fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Oct 12, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 00:13
|
|
|
The thing is, while Kvothe is often a gently caress-up, he's a gently caress-up in ways that are generally either non-conflicting with his super badassery, or in ways that enhance said badassery. Much like how 'clumsy' is an extremely common 'flaw' in your generic female fanfic self-insert mary sue, things like Kvothe's being terminally poor, or an rear end in a top hat to the wrong people, they largely only exist as springboard for him to do something gratuitously badass. I have no doubt that there's an element of the story that's being unreliably told, but there's just too much to Kvothe himself that's very classic Mary Sue for me to think there's going to be some brilliant switcheroo or subversion that's coming. At least not with regard to Kvothe the character.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
Srice posted:I felt that way too when I saw that interview. Mostly because it's hard to buy his argument that fantasy fans are prudes when ASoIaF is popular as heck and will stay that way for quite some time thanks to the tv series. And I'm not a huge fantasy reader by any means but I'm under the impression that sex and the occasional rape scene aren't exactly uncommon sights in modern fantasy. Yeah. I mean, if this was the 80s still, I could understand the sentiment more. But that ship has sailed, and long since.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2012 07:18
|
|
|
It's skeezy, really skeezy, but he's so painfully genero-nerd that I don't know that I can hold it against him personally so much as I do against the fact that this is what passes for generic nerdity these days.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
Not by Denna, you don't speak so glowingly about the girl who told you to gently caress off, you're being a creep-o.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
Yeah I have no doubt that things will not end well, but I also have little doubt that nothing's going to change his overall position on women in general and Denna in specific.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
Flatscan posted:Didn't GRRM creep out Emilia Clarke so much that she had her contract renegotiated to add a no-nudity clause? Honestly that sounds like one of the most generically apocryphal stories I've ever heard. A cursory google says nothing of the sort, but she did have someone impersonating her for a while online so maybe that's where that came from?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
Yeah I dunno, I wouldn't believe it really, he's a creep to be sure but that one's a little out there. Thing about Rothfuss' creepery and the similar strains of it you see out there is that I have a hard time feeling that there's any sort of malice to it. It's a sort of ham-handed attitude that always seems to me that it's coming from a place of ignorance, that most people who subscribe to it genuinely believe they're being pro-chick, as it were. That doesn't make it less wrong, but it means that on a personal level I'm less sure how to deal with people who think these things.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 15:32
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:He's actually the advisor of the College Feminists at the college he teaches at and he thinks he's totally a feminist so this is, I think, a pretty clear case of a dumbass being a dumbass rather than someone being malicious. I don't think that gives him a free pass, though, because I suspect even people who are straight up "women are inferior and need to stay in the kitchen" don't think they're being malicious either. They're just even stupider than Rothfuss, or maybe they haven't had enough education to transform their stupidity into the form it takes in Rothfuss. Not a free pass, no, not by any stretch, and I don't think he should get one. I dunno though, it's difficult for me to articulate, let alone articulate well. So, I don't know that I can say anything here other than, yeah, I believe that he means well and the misogynist viewpoints in question are the product of lack of awareness and I hope that this means eventually he'll come around.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2012 03:30
|
|
|
The thing for me with GRRM is the assorted sorts of signing pictures you see with him being all touchy with the women there and whatnot. It's not really the contents of the books which give me a particular vibe about him, even characters' ages. It's the wandering eyes/hands pictures that get me, and it's largely what skeeves me worse about him than Rothfuss, who, I think, thinks he's being respectful (and honestly I'm reasonably sure he usually is).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2012 06:09
|
|
|
The missing Lackless is Kvothe's mother.  I have less problems with Denna than many do, but frankly she'd be much more interesting if she wasn't filtered through Kvothe's head.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't know that the fact that he subscribes to a more subtle and pervasive form of sexism makes it inappropriate for him to recognize, comment on, or have distaste for the more obvious types.Notahippie posted:To me, that just suggests that Rothfuss is in the same boat a lot of people with stunted social skills are, where he genuinely unaware of how patronizing and creepy the putting women on a pedestal thing is. Oh yeah, I think this has been obvious for some time really.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
As true as this is, "and then I gave the lecture in place of my rear end in a top hat professor and everyone applauded at the end" is classic shitthatdidnthappen.txt material. I dunno, that bit didn't bother me exactly, but is dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
If he had some sort of history of doing that sort of thing I guess I might be more inclined to believe it. What makes you say that?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 10:26
|
|
|
Eh, I think something in the setting but not, like, you playing Kvothe would be perfectly fine. I think a lot of the flaws he has in writing are also either less important or less noticable in a video game, so, eh I'm not terribly bothered by it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
wellwhoopdedooo posted:I've been following this thread for a while. Is there a female opinion on this? Do you give even a tiny poo poo one way or the other? I think Kvothe is a creep and Rothfuss has expressed some creepy sentiments though I do honestly think he means well*. However, I'm personally not sold that the text is endorsing Kvothe being a creep or a gently caress-up, even if he's still both in the present day segments. That is just how I have taken it and I am pretty relaxed about such things in general; I'd fully understand someone being more bothered by the first two things or not agreeing on the last. *Which doesn't really excuse having expressed them, but I don't strictly have a problem with someone considering themself a feminist even if there's still things they sorely need to learn. neongrey fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2013 09:57
|
|
|
I'm 100% sure he's got a complete first draft, but I think people vastly over-think how much a first draft is worth in terms of how publishable something is. I sincerely doubt agreeing to do some novellas here and there is interfering in any appreciable sense, either. I'm not the guy's biggest fan, but I've seen people get bent out of shape at him for doing some pretty significant charity work because it involves not being chained to a desk banging out the next book, that's kind of lousy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:Surely we can make an exception for Felurian. She literally talks about sex like bad martial arts moves ~flying tiger dragon punch~. 'Hundred Lashes' or whatever it was. I'm not a real fan of that section myself, but the silly names for sex moves scans pretty well with my (vague) memory of the Kama Sutra and other related texts.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to think well of Kvothe and his behaviour. If this is the case I'm even surer that that's why the present-day sequences exist (knowing they were added in later drafts). I am just as sure that the text does a lousy job of giving you the impression that you're supposed to think he's a little poo poo. e: I do think the narration is mostly reliable, just that the authorial intent is not for you to think Kvothe is awesome, even if that's what Kvothe wants you to think. But piss on authorial intent, it reads too much like the kool-aid has been drunk. neongrey fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 10:21
|
|
|
There's unreliable and there's unreliable. There's basically no reason to believe he's lying about any of this. There's reason, I think, to think he's painting the best possible picture he can of himself while not deviating from the literal truth.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
Yeah and I wouldn't say it's fully reliable myself. Just saying that I don't much think outright lies are the thing to be looking at when discussing his reliability or not. Like really, I think everything he narrates is basically true. And I think the authorial intent, for what that's worth, is for us to not be taking Kvothe's awesomeness as gospel, and I think that's one of the things signalled by the frame story. I also think the frame story does a fairly poor job of selling the idea that we're intended to think he's the snot-nosed little shitheel he is. (I don't think the frame story is enough to carry that, and too much of the text is devoted to autofellatio, I think)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
I've heard he's still calling in the dogs years after the fact, yeah. The usual 'I can't control my fans but they do this consistently every time I mention this person who I coincidentally keep mentioning' schtick.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Yeah there are a loving million ways to say 'I liked x once but it's different now and it's cool if you like it but for me it's weird' without a really loving gross analogy as that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Go gently caress yourself. I don't shame you for your reading habits, don't shame me for mine. I believe it's because people like you get so ridiculously defensive about it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I have no need to justify myself and what I find entertaining to you. While this is perfectly true, you don't get to do this when any time you perceive the merit of the work is somehow "in danger", you leap to its defense. If you want to stop being called upon to justify what you find entertaining, stop putting yourself in positions where you are, effectively, daring people to ask you to justify it. Enjoying something doesn't make it meritorious.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:21 |
|
|
I dunno, I won't really hold it against a book that's written in a fairly modern vernacular for using a modern vernacular. None of the phrasings Bravest is taking objection to is really out of place with the surrounding language used. It being out of place with the premise, sure, I can see that argument, and that's probably worthwhile, but calling out individual phrasings as being anachronistic or too modern English seems ultimately pointless to me, if only because everything is going to be like that. At this point, it's going 'look at how curly these five hairs are' when you're pointing at pubic hair. e: that said, the violin thing always sticks out, it is a particularly specific idiom.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 19:59
|
|