I couldn't stand the hero (who hit every single cliche that drives me nuts), the plot was absurd, and the treatment of the female characters was disturbing. Yet overall I liked the book. It was a very strange reading experience.

But while I can enjoy it as something fun to read, it in no way deserves the 5 or so pages of critical praise in the beginning of my copy. This article pretty much sums up my reading.

Although, I was amused by how, in some ways, this novel is structured much like the Victorian apologia required for authors back then, frame narrative, etc.

I love how you put it: His world is about as strange and dangerous as a mashed potato sandwich. . Indeed.

"dangerous as a mashed potato sandwich"....can I borrow this phrase? Also, completely agree with your review. I'm a little mystified that this is considered by some the greatest this genre has to offer.

...can I borrow this phrase?

Of course. Just be sure to reserve it for efforts as appalingly bad as The Name of the Wind.

Also, completely agree with your review. I'm a little mystified that this is considered by some the greatest this genre has to offer.

Yeah, it is bizarre. A book that has almost nothing fantastical about it is hailed as the best the fantasy genre has to offer.

I gather a great many readers aren't interested in the fantastical or exotic aspect of fantasy, but rather the wish-fulfillment aspect. Because setting aside wish-fulfillment, there's no book here.

Agree. I just could not empathise with the character. He's just SO full of himself it was a turn off. Comments on the lines of: "If you're not a XXXX you'll not understand..." Seemed too condescending and repetitive.

Not a bad book, but both author and character could use a bit of humility every now and then.

i dont know - a mashed potato sandwich sounds pretty strange to me. and im sure Irwin Mainway could prove it's potential danger. In any case, though i strongly disagree.. i can appreciate a well thought out point of view. to each their own. kudos.

I'll add to the head-scratching. I'm done with magic schools and teenage supermen who are perfect at everything.

I agree that this is not a 5 star fantasy book. It’s almost a torture to read for the reasons mentioned above. The main protagonist is a self-inflated prick which would be fine if the author was aware of it but in the author’s eye, baseborn arrogance is a good thing and that’s where the credibility of the whole book crumbles. Harry potter was a little prick too but he was believable and his arrogance exposed in the last book. I haven’t finished the story of Kvothe the Delusional (note how even his supposedly not flattering names in the book are actually flattering!!!) but I already know that he is not going grow up as the narrator is still the same arrogant self-absorbed prick. I guess the writer did an ok job because he managed to get me fueled up. I liked the part when the great dark Chandrian destroyed the troupe - that is until they started to talk like bickering market wives. Why couldn’t they just do their deed in silence and kill Kvothe to make the book bearable? Less is more Rothfuss.

I agree very much. I didn't care about the main character, if he's so perfect, he doesn't need my readership.

Kristin, that is a great way of putting it!

Kristin wrote: "I agree very much. I didn't care about the main character, if he's so perfect, he doesn't need my readership."

Being perfect isn't interesting - it's boring beyond belief. Kvothe's struggles aren't in the least bit imaginative either. They're just a thinly-disguised portrayal of a self-pitying college student. Not hard to see the autobiographical element there.

If the setting was original, exotic, or richly detailed, it might have made up for the dull protagonist. However, Rothfuss' world is just as boring as Kvothe. I can't remember a single thing about the setting of this novel, except for some sort of spider-monsters that make a brief appearance.

All I remember is the structure of the money, which is a very boring detail in to note about a pretty lackluster world. I can't believe that a blatant, 680-page Mary Sue fanfiction is so popular.

It makes me sad to see a review like this of such a great book - and I'm being honest when I say I can't understand where you're coming from.

I loved the book for its emotion. I don't think it was trying to be excessively dangerous etc, it is, after all, only one third of a story.

I'm a big critic when it comes to show-not-tell in writing, and I didn't think that Patrick did all the telling at all. What made you think/say that? Can you give me a quote or something? (Example of poor writing: Not Without My Daughter)

The novel stood out to me because it is different (it followed the life of a man as opposed to a specific story - although, of course, his life is the story), the characters are diverse and interesting (even if they could be a little more developed) and Kvothe's life is interesting. And I love the fact that it's not all war and terror. I've read the second one though, and Kvothe's life gets a lot more interesting in A Wise Man's Fear, and I have forgotten what happens in each book separately.

May I ask one thing? Why did you expect the novel to be strange and devious? Or better, I suppose, is why should it be strange and devious?

Sorry, *dangerous* (I'm a little tired)

And, may I point out, once again, that the first book is really only one third of a story - the danger that is in Kvothe's world hasn't emerged yet. It does only cover one day of story telling!

I'm enjoying the book but I also agree with pretty much everything you've said, although I think the prose style is decent and I have read far worse. Off the top of my head have a read of The Da Vinci Code if you want to see terrible prose.

The greatness of the central character is irritating me but I'm only halfway through and I'm also hoping that once we lose the back story there will be a better tale to tell: the early, 3rd person parts of the story were a lot better.

Theo, unfortunately the greatness of the character as you correctly put it, only gets worse. I agree the prose wasn't terrible, I have read worse (like Da Vinci code:), but it's impossible to get pass Quothe who is the wobbly axis of Rothfuss' half-cooked world.

Ruby wrote: "It makes me sad to see a review like this of such a great book - and I'm being honest when I say I can't understand where you're coming from.

...I'm a big critic when it comes to show-not-tell in writing, and I didn't think that Patrick did all the telling at all. What made you think/say that? Can you give me a quote or something?

...May I ask one thing? Why did you expect the novel to be strange and devious? Or better, I suppose, is why should it be strange and devious?

Ruby, sorry but I can't quote any particular passage. I read the book a couple years ago, and traded it away immediately. The prose wasn't Steven Erikson terrible. It was just kinda weak. Certainly not the masterly prose that the cover blurbs and reviews celebrate.

Some examples of excellent prose (IMHO): Jim Crace, Jack Vance, Patrick O'Brian, Kazuo Ishiguro, Brian Moore, William Golding, Robert Graves, Beryl Bainbridge, Patricia McKillip, Evangeline Walton.

As for 'strange and dangerous', that's simply the expectation I have for the kind of fantasy I enjoy. I like stories of exotic adventure, and perilous sojourns, set in realms far removed from my own experience. Historical fiction set in the Roman empire, or during the Napoleonic wars. Early sword and sorcery and fantasy.

The Name of the Wind was one of my attempts to dip my toes in popular, contemporary fantasy. Judging by the results (I thought the Name of the Wind was insipid, Harry Potter was dull, the Gardens of the Moon was execrable, and A Song of Ice and Fire decent but flawed), the genre has evolved far away from my tastes. It has become a genre geared towards power fantasies rather than exotic adventures. And like much genre fiction, the standards of an audience who reads reams of extruded material have declined to the point where even the most lauded works are badly written. At least the authors of the pulp era had the merit of brevity and liveliness. A lot of today's stuff is little more than D&D / Buffy/ Harry Potter fanfic stretched out to 3,000 pages.

So I no longer trust popular opinion when it comes to fantasy. My tastes are sufficiently different that there's no utility in it.

Rob wrote: "Ruby wrote: "It makes me sad to see a review like this of such a great book - and I'm being honest when I say I can't understand where you're coming from.

...I'm a big critic when it comes to show..."

Thanks for your response Rob, I appreciate your opinion.

Whatever Rob is smoking everyone needs some.

Although I agree with opinions that the book was "abound with cliches" it should occur to readers that that was one foundational factor of the story line. The blurb itself displayed such cliches and yet, readers willingly picked up the book for a read. Isn't that what blurbs are meant to be? that is...to be a reflective of the story.

I thought the book was a great read with witty characters who are courageous and mysterious in their own ways. If you have established that the main character is arrogant and too full of himself, then you should have come to realise that that is the whole purpose of the story. And if that just distatisfies you, then you shouldn't have read the book in the first place, as the blurb already mentions exactly what the character's personality is like. Although the blurb is pretty clear, and you've decided to read the book so you could just criticise it, you need to learn to read inbetween the lines. It's a fantastic book that's very well detailed, and honestly, I would love to see critics write somthing better.

Well, I personally find the writing very good. I won't list any bad written books, because I'm not sure if they were bad written or just bad. I know, the story may seem like your typical orphan-boy-find-magic-and-sword and probably is. But the difference between Kingkiller and other similar books is in the world. I have never seen this well thought world. It's magic is explained and believable. And Kvothe? He's smart. He thinks before he acts. I'm used to guy who just pick up their sword or magic, fight and thing afterwards. And probably lots of other stuff. Maybe this just isn't your kind of book. And also, I feel like the book is a sort of tribute, so that's why Kvothe follows similar line to other books - except he experiences it all. But the real magic of the book is, that though Kvothe looks like the hero of the heroes, he's the one who's telling the story. And it's obvious he tells it differently that it really happened, so I'm really looking forward to find out what he's hiding

Julie wrote: "Although I agree with opinions that the book was "abound with cliches" it should occur to readers that that was one foundational factor of the story line. The blurb itself displayed such cliches an..."

I admit, I let the fulsome praise on the book cover fool me. And I was really curious about what a popular fantasy book looks like these days. Now I know. So I won't make that mistake again.

As for Kvothe, a character can be a famous rogue and still be fun. Look at Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, or Cugel. Or Flashman. Accomplished and legendary one and all. But also adorned with massive character flaws, which their creators depict with glee. But Kvothe is humourless wish fulfilment. Nothing more.

although i disagree with you, nice review :D

Oh, thank you for putting this review out there. I was beginning to doubt my own tastes because of the overwhelming amount of praise this book received and it left me feeling less than luke warm. Thus, I am grateful to your review. Now I don't feel so alone.

I really don't understand where you're coming from as far as your description of the main character goes... I can understand that you would like more evvironment-description, read tolkien instead you'll be satisfied, but the fact is that the author finds that boring as do I and a lot of others. So I guess this is just a point of view so don't present it as a condemnation. I can understand that maybe you wanted fruity words especially when it's described as poetic next to the title. But to say that this is bad writing is simply mean! I've read so many bad books lately that I am personally offended when you call this breath of fresh air bad writing. I agree it's not poetic but certainly not of poor quality. However, I absolutely don't see how Kvothe is either perfect or arrogant. The whole story explains how everything was exaggerated and that in fact he was really flawed. And he has such a bad time that I really fail to see the arrogance. He is kind, really smart and a really good musician and in my world those things are allowed. However he is stupid with the girl and makes really bad life decisions in this book at least so I also fail to see the perfection you accused him of. He is not "stronger, deadlier, smarter, sexier" he is just smarter and again, that's allowed! Especially in a hero!

I do love the phrase "fruity words." Do you mind if I borrow it? even if I didn't like this book as much as you did.

Marie wrote: "I do love the phrase "fruity words." Do you mind if I borrow it? even if I didn't like this book as much as you did."

Hahaha! Borrow it, of course. Although I didn't like the book as much as I seem. I just don't like unjustifiedly mean reviews.

Worth saying that while I was fairly disappointed in the first book I also liked the contemporary aspect enough to check the second one out and it's a LOT better. There seems to be much less of Kvothe's greatness, or rather it is less 'smug', I suppose. There's also a great deal less University stuff, which probably helps, since you finally get that strong world description and cultural ideas the first book lacks.

Not sure it will change the minds of any haters but if you felt irritated by the first book failing to deliver, like me, then give it a whirl.

Ahahah your talkin about popularity in college. Lol no one cares after high school.

Though I gave the book a higher rating, I enjoyed your review. I didn't think Rothfuss was all that terrible as far as fantasy writers go. Some of it sucked, but some of it was pretty good. If you want to read some truly terribly writing, I would be happy to point you in the direction of a few. *cough*AnneBishop*cough* I would love to hear some of your recommendations of good writing. :-)

I'm confused by the response to this review. Personal opinions aside, I'm all for critical debate and certainly would not dismiss your evidence because of your conclusion. But your entire 'review' is based on vague and hollow critiques. Criticizing the quality of prose on display here because it does too much 'telling' and not enough 'showing' is inane and sounds like a freshman English major's attempt at a critique. How does it tell to much? Is the world-building underdeveloped? The characters shallowly detailed? The relational complexities stunted? Your review is in fact a little heavy on the tell and a little light on the show. And to say this ("So I no longer trust popular opinion when it comes to fantasy. My tastes are sufficiently different that there's no utility in it.") after discrediting a host of the most critically and commercially successful contemporary fantasy writers suggests that perhaps your tastes aren't geared toward fantasy literature. Or they're simply contrarian. In either case, their value is of little to us who enjoy quality fantasy literature and use this forum to expand our reach.

I say all this not to troll, but to engage. Please, if you have something concrete, offer it up. I'm genuinely curious. But all I know right now is that you hate this book, you hate this book, you hate this character, you hate this book, you apparently hate fantasy literature, you hate this book and also something about mashed potatoes.

And to just comment on the one concrete bit of critique you offer, I think your take on the main character is wildly off-base. To suggest that Kvothe isn't flawed is...well, flawed. Rothfuss repeatedly hammers home that his arrogance and brashness will be his downfall, and we already have witnessed that numerous times over the first two books. Not to mention that the structure of this book offers us a glimpse at a broken, flawed, and infamous adult Kvothe who is wasting away and whose character development trajectory clearly will extend beyond even that narrative pitstop. To ignore this is equivalent to reading 1/3 or 2/3 of a book, stopping and decrying the character without ever finishing. Not a useful critical strategy

Luke wrote: "Is the world-building underdeveloped?"

Yes. As I remark in my review, it's a vanilla world, unmemorable and unoriginal. The only even half-interesting thing I can remember about it was some sort of spider creatures.

Luke wrote: "The characters shallowly detailed? The relational complexities stunted?"

Yes and yes.

Luke wrote: "And to say this ("So I no longer trust popular opinion when it comes to fantasy. My tastes are sufficiently different that there's no utility in it.") after discrediting a host of the most critically and commercially successful contemporary fantasy writers suggests that perhaps your tastes aren't geared toward fantasy literature."


Well, looking at my bookshelves, these are some of the authors I enjoy:

Michael Moorcock
Ursula LeGuin
Clark Ashton Smith
Gene Wolfe
Evangeline Walton
Fritz Leiber
Tanith Lee
Patricia McKillip
Jack Vance

All fantasy writers as far as I can tell. All quite acclaimed by their peers (most have won the World Fantasy Award at least once).

True, none are currently popular. So in my opinion, it's the genre that has changed over the last 20 or so years. The Fantasy genre used to be about immersion in weird and fantastic settings, peopled by strange characters who would be totally out of place in the modern world. The Grey Mouser doesn't really have a 20th century counterpart. Prince Corum is not someone a typical college student from Ohio has much in common with. None of Jack Vance's character inspire strong sympathy and emotional connection. But they're not supposed to - they live in a world that is hostile and strange beyond the experience of a 21st century suburbanite. Those characters aren't just different in the trappings of clothes and role in life. They think and behave in a dramatically different fashion from modern people.

By contrast, today's fantasy is more geared towards wish fulfilment by giving today's readers escape into character, rather than another time and place. And those characters are very much like modern people in their values and beliefs. Whole pages of The Name of the Wind could have taken place on the campus of the University of Wisconsin, whereas there isn't a paragraph of Vance's The Dying Earth where the reader isn't gawping at wonders terrible and beautiful.

Frankly, I find the historical fiction of authors like Bernard Cornwell and Sharon Kay Penman more wondrous and fantastic than what passes for fantasy these days.

So you are wholesale rejecting literature that injects its fantasy into an otherwise recognizable or realistic setting? How if that indicative of the genre's failings? Ok so you do like a certain category of fantasy literature? That doesn't mean that books that fall outside that realm are poorly written and poorly developed. Unlike you, I gravitate toward the heavily realistic fantasy and think spider creatures are stupid. I have read plenty of books of this persuasion that are in fact bland and intolerable; this is not one of them. You've convinced me you don't like this type of fantasy; not that this book is lacking in quality. Again, I could call any number of your favorite books vanilla or your favorite characters vain, but ultimately that doesn't tell you very much. I can name you a hundred ways this world is well-developed. Can you name me any ways in which it isn't, other than it not fitting into your idea of what fantasy should be?

Luke wrote: "So you are wholesale rejecting literature that injects its fantasy into an otherwise recognizable or realistic setting? How if that indicative of the genre's failings?


It's indicative of that (sub-)genre's failure to entertain me.

Luke wrote: "That doesn't mean that books that fall outside that realm are poorly written and poorly developed."

I suppose they can't all be poorly written, though genre fiction in general tends to be the domain of hacks in desperate need of editing (I can't begin to understand how the Gardens of the Moon made it past an editor). The trick is finding the exceptions. But since this particular strain of fantasy is tiresome to me in any case, I'm reluctant to waste any more time trying to find out if there's gold hidden among the dross.

However, looking over on my shelves again I see a series which may in fact fall into the sub-genre we're dealing with: The Bartimaeus Trilogy by Jonathan Stroud. It's about an orphan who endures hard knocks and earns fame by becoming a master magician, etc. Far, far more pleasing prose than Rothfuss, with a sardonic authorial voice and a witty turn of phrase. The main character is clever and sympathetic without being transparent wish fulfilment. In fact, he's a selfish little bastard who nobody likes. The setting - an alternate reality early 20th century England - is better realized and more interesting than Rothfuss' world. Altogether an imaginative and engaging series of novels. So there's hope for modern fantasy yet - at least in the YA category.

Hahah rob is getting owned by Luke!

Rob is not at all getting owned by Luke. This isn't some sort of contest; there's no winning at opinions.

At first, I thought Luke truly did want to open the board to discussion of this book in an effort to understand someone else's opinion which obviously differed drastically from his own. Rob even asks for help understanding what makes this book so great for other readers. This should have been an enlightening discussion, right?
However, by this point, I'm seeing a lot of nitpicking and finger-pointing from Luke rather than actual discussion; it's like he's pretending to try to make Rob stand up for his beliefs about this novel but is actually wandering toward the territory of bullying because he doesn't seem to accept Rob's explanations for his opinions. Instead, it looks to me like he continues to challenge everything Rob says and I can't figure out why.
To me, it sounds like Rob did not enjoy this book, though had expected to due to the accolades it has received. It seems his reasons for not enjoying this book involve the story being trite, the language being drab, unimaginative, and too similar to our own modern lexicon to fit into a fantastical world. From what I can tell, Rob's main complaint is that this is not an immersive world on its own but, rather, it's our world draped with the trappings of fantasy so there's nothing new to see or learn or understand because, if you peel away the facade, middle class America is right underneath. That's just my spin on someone else's opinion and I fully admit I'm biased because I, too, was disappointed in this story.
What I don't understand, though, is why Rob's opinion is so upsetting to people. The review is not at all mean, it doesn't say that people who read this book are idiots and that fantasy writers are now pandering to the lowest common denominator. He just says he doesn't get why the book is so popular. The rebuttals that follow are also all opinion-based. Why is that wrong? Why can't Rob not like the book and not understand why other people like it so well? Has Rob been on other people's glowing reviews for this story and attacking their opinions? I don't get why there's so much pushback to this one review.

(Rob and Luke, I apologize for addressing you both in the third person, but I'm pretending that I'm talking to Ross...on Rob's Goodreads page...and this is now getting a bit weird so I'm going to desist)

Erica wrote: "Rob is not at all getting owned by Luke. This isn't some sort of contest; there's no winning at opinions.

At first, I thought Luke truly did want to open the board to discussion of this book in an..."

Thanks Erica. You summed up my opinion quite well.

I think what gets some people upset about these sorts of reviews is they feel the critic has made a definitive, objective condemnation of the book. So they defend a work they love by challenging that assessment.

However, all I've done is express my opinion. To me, the book is no better than one star. I gave my reasons why. They don't invalidate anyone else's opinion.

I totally understand getting all bent out of shape because someone hates a book I love. It's happened before and, inside, I think to myself that the reader must be a terrible person who is full of stupid. But, outside? I know that's not true. I know that not everyone has to feel the way I do about things, especially forms of entertainment. That's why there are so many different forms of entertainment - so that everyone can have something to love.

I enjoy a good discussion. I'll argue for hours about crap I don't even care about. It's fun, it's good for the brain, it's harmless...as long as it is actual discussion. I felt that is what was missing here. I didn't see a lot of "I see your point and I understand it. I don't embrace it, though, because I feel XYZ" All I keep seeing is, "OMG! You're so wrong! Let me tell you why your wrong and then I'll let you tell me that you're not wrong so I can tell you you're wrong again" and that's not conducive to debate. And so I had to butt in like some nosy person and get all up in arms. I just didn't see the engagement that was promised and it made me sad.

@Erica, you're misrepresenting my argument. I was never saying that Rob's opinion was wrong; how could it be? Rather, I was arguing that based on much of what he said (the type of fantasy he enjoys, the type of fantasy he doesn't, the characters he despises)indicates that perhaps this particular brand of fantasy just isn't his cup of tea. Yes, I like the book but that doesn't mean I can't accept someone who doesn't. I'm arguing that I DID find the world rich and well-detailed, the characters engaging, the narrative push exception and the truncated structure effective in creating suspense and generating intrigue. It's easy to call a book bland or a character boring, and I wanted to know why he felt that way. I feel like now I do know, as he has explained what it is he looks for in fantasy. Perhaps I am being a bit antagonistic, but that is due more to the response generated ("Rob, I loved your review") than to Rob's opinions. I didn't understand what people loved, as all I got from his initial commentary was that he hated the book.

@Rob Though I understand more clearly where your tastes lie, I'm still struggling to understand a couple of your criticisms. This emphasis on wish fulfillment is problematic to me. As I stated, Kvothe is very obviously a flawed character and one whose development is still far from complete. It's made clear over and over that much of his supposed strengths are truly weaknesses. Also problematic is your suggestion that this sub-genre of fantasy is built of 'wish fulfillment' characters. Take the 'Song of Ice and Fire' series,' to cite something you referenced as lacking. In what way are those characters wish fulfillment? And how exactly is this specific incarnation of fantasy more realistic, more middle America, than, say, anything by Kazuo Ishiguro. And please, don't cite the geographical differences because 'Wind' is much more obviously inspired by a European setting.

Again, my point in this IS a discussion. Saying writing is bad and characters are bad and world-building is bad...well, those are vague critiques. If I said the writing of a favorite book of yours was bad, wouldn't you be interested to know what exactly I found lacking? I understand and respect your opinion; I'm looking for you to expound upon it. Humor my feeble mind. :)

I have to say, Luke, that I didn't see any of Kvothe's "flawed character" or any indication that it was his own flaws that brought him down.

Wish fulfillment may not be the best term, but when I read it, Rothfuss didn't seem inclined to give Kvothe any real hardship—the most egregious example was, from my perspective, Kvothe's childhood of supposed poverty. As terrible as that could be, as soon as he decides to do something...it just happens. He doesn't actually struggle once he decides he doesn't need to.

And okay, maybe the other books fix it, but this book doesn't make me want to find out. That's what I don't like about a lot of the defense of AGoT because I really didn't like that book.

The Name of the Wind was *engaging* enough to finish reading, but while I gave it more stars than Rob did, I thought even his 'vague' criticisms were inline with what I thought while reading it. At any rate, what I'm trying to say is that he doesn't need to get more specific in what he didn't like because he already said: I can't imagine he wants to go back to a book he didn't like just to find quotes that annoy him :) But from what I recall, the writing tended towards melodramatic descriptions that I had to work pretty hard to ignore. Many 'poetic' passages tended toward nonsensical imagery, which isn't uncommon in books that try it. Also, one chapter started with an awful fragment, first sentence. That's something that annoys me.

@Erica, Can I just say that I love your posts? Especially, I enjoy a good discussion. I'll argue for hours about crap I don't even care about. It's fun, it's good for the brain, it's harmless...as long as it is actual discussion. That whole paragraph. I've been seeing a lot of that attitude lately (FYI, Luke, I'm not directing that at you specifically) and it makes me sad too. I keep meaning to write a blog post on how any disagreement anymore seems to end with "well, I disagree and therefore I'm right!"

@Marie I would love to continue this dialogue, to address why I disagree with some of your assertions, but apparently my differing opinions lack the qualities substantive enough for a discussion? I've remained questioning this entire time. I haven't once said "Rob is a moron" or "Rob is wrong." I've asked for him to expound on what I see as vague criticisms. Obviously he does not *need* to get more specific, but specificity is kind of a requisite of any good discussion. He doesn't need multiple people jumping to his defense because I'm not attacking him. You act as if I am bullying him by indirectly holding him accountable for him opinions. I'm simply curious. You have addressed specific bits of Rothfuss's writing, for instance, that you found wanting. THAT is what I was looking for from Rob. While I don't agree with some of what you've articulated, I can also see where you're coming from regarding much of it.

And as far as this 'attitude' that myself and others are apparently projecting, I'm finding it difficult to be apologetic. I have not been rude or demeaning. I haven't said that Rob was wrong, only that I disagreed. At the risk of sounding like a prick, I have to say that I'm rather sick of the self-victimization that I tend to see on the forums. I haven't bullied anyone, and suggesting otherwise is unfair.My opinion is that if someone can't defend their opinions, they shouldn't publicly announce them...or at least shouldn't feel slighted when someone questions them. My two cents.

Luke wrote: "@Rob Though I understand more clearly where your tastes lie, I'm still struggling to understand a couple of your criticisms. This emphasis on wish fulfillment is problematic to me. As I stated, Kvothe is very obviously a flawed character and one whose development is still far from complete. It's made clear over and over that much of his supposed strengths are truly weaknesses."


I read the book two years ago, so I can't recall many specifics. However, I disliked the mature Kvothe we met at the outset, the way his inhuman pal worshipped him. He seemed bland and too cool for school. And working in a fancy pub cleaning glasses? It just seemed lame.

Then the student Kvothe struggling with money, but admired by the girls. How quickly he learned things. Ged from the Wizard of Earthsea is another fantasy character who learns magic quickly (he's an orphan as well). However, his singular ambition eventually makes him unlikeable to his fellow students and to the reader. Which is psychologically and dramatically apt. Kvothe, on the other hand, comes across as simply the cool kid that that author (and presumably readers) wished they had been at school.

Luke wrote: "Also problematic is your suggestion that this sub-genre of fantasy is built of 'wish fulfillment' characters."

I'm trying to discern what is different about fantasy today versus fantasy 30-40 years ago, which is when most of my favourites were written. Because I like a lot of fantasy from back then, and almost none now. Presumably, the genre has changed. From what I've read in reviews, it seems readers today want to be inside the skin of the characters, and feel like they're a better or more powerful version of themselves. That's my theory. But if you want to read a few books from the authors I cited and get back with your impressions of how Fantasy has changed, feel free. Maybe you could develop your own theory.

Luke wrote: "Take the 'Song of Ice and Fire' series,' to cite something you referenced as lacking. In what way are those characters wish fulfillment?"

Actually, I enjoyed the Song of Ice and Fire better than other contemporary fantasies. You can read my review of a Game of Thrones.

Luke wrote: "And how exactly is this specific incarnation of fantasy more realistic, more middle America, than, say, anything by Kazuo Ishiguro. And please, don't cite the geographical differences because 'Wind' is much more obviously inspired by a European setting.
"

Let's see. The tavern where the mature Kvothe tells his tale is like a modern bar, with its clean glasses and brass fixtures, than a medieval drinking den. The geography, towns, and peoples we meet are about as exotic as the set of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. There's just nothing exotic, weird, or awe-inspiring about it.

And setting is more than physical surroundings. It's the customs and beliefs of the people. And the people in Name of the Wind behave and act like modern North Americans. If this is a resource-poor world like, well, anywhere else in history besides the late-20th century Western world, people behave very differently. They tend to be tough. Desperate. Suspicious. I'd far rather be an urchin in Kvothe's world than in 14th century England, or modern-day Karachi. Or if you want to go more of a fairy-tale root, mythic characters are possessed of passions far stronger than ours. Their angers, griefs, jealousies are on another scale. Didn't see much of that here either. Just people behaving much like modern, comfortable, tolerant North Americans would behave.

In short, the world in this book is dull and soft compared to Lankhmar, the Dying Earth, or the worlds of Moorcock's multiverse. While those books are only a step away from the raw power of history and myth, much modern fantasy is a blend of 3rd generation pop fantasy, TV shows, videogames, and B action movies. It's several steps removed from the primal weirdness and power that fuels the fantasy I enjoy. It's an episode of CSI: Las Vegas compared to Fritz Lang's M.

I can't get more specific than that. As I said, I read the book more than two years ago, it didn't make much of an impression besides being weak and dull, and I traded it away. I'm sure if I asked you some specifics about why you didn't like a Cameron Diaz romantic comedy you watched in 2009, you wouldn't have much in the way of specifics either.

Luke, I certainly never meant for you to feel attacked, or to put you one the defensive. I'm sorry to continue this discussion in Rob's space as well, but I feel that it's important to clarify, because it doesn't lead to a true discussion as you said. I never implied you were bullying, and I do apologize if you felt that way. Referring to my 'attitude' comment, it is something I've been discussing on my blog for weeks and wasn't directed at you. And you feel that people aren't responding directly to your opinions because they can't support their own—in that way I think we agree.

To continue the discussion of the book, because I can't read your review: why did you think the setting was unique? All of the settings felt rather...generic, I suppose...to me. Although we may just have different tastes, as the only Ishiguro I read (Never Let Me Go) I wasn't impressed by. :) And The Name of The Wind felt like wish fulfillment to me too, because even the 'old' Kvothe we're introduced to is only, what, 25? Just curious, did you have any trouble with the ages in the novel? They just felt ridiculously exaggerated for the situation.

But if you'd rather not continue the discussion here, feel free to come over to my review. Considering the several pages of blurbs that prefaced my edition, I am curious what others found that I didn't. And many positive reviews can be scarce of detail.

@Rob I appreciate your expounding upon your ideas. Your rationales definitely are more clear to me now, and as I've maintained, I never thought you were "wrong," just that we disagreed. And based on what you've said here, it makes a lot of sense to me. Fantasy is one of those tricky genres, the breadth of which results in instances like this where 2 people can have such a vastly different foundation for their enjoyment of said genre. Part of me still wants to argue with some of your assertions, such as your hang-up with the period details of a bar and the overall Americanism of the book. While I grant that certain cadences and narrative inflections might suggest something more contemporary and western, your reasons aren't in and of themselves condemning. Brass has been readily available since before the Anno Domini epoch began, and these descriptions in the book are reserved for upper crust cultural and social institutions. That Kvothe particularly would choose to utilize said symbol of civility and accomplished living in his own establishment does not seem outside the scope of his characterization, either. But I disgress. I'm on board with your thinking now, understand the kind of fantasy that you are inclined to enjoy and appreciate your willingness to elaborate for me.

@Marie No worries. I didn't feel attacked, just like I was being misunderstood. And yes, we probably do agree on our mutual frustration with the 'it's my opinion and therefore can't be wrong' epidemic that plagues internet forums.

As for the book's setting, as I intimated in my response to Rob, I tend to like my fantasy light on the...fantastic. I enjoy worlds that closely resemble our own, be that a a historical or contemporary versions, but a little skewed. A fun-house mirror reflection, if you will. Overly fantastical worlds, most imaginary or mythological creatures, supernatural beings and an abundance of races (dwarves, elves, etc.) are much less interesting to me than to many fantasy lovers. That being the case, I look much more for cohesion and synergy in fantasy worlds. So you may find this vanilla, uninspired, etc. but to me, it is a world that is both familiar and intriguing. It is recognizable, but also different enough to keep me excited. Get me too far away from that comfort zone, and I lose interest; I simply can't connect. (On a side note, "Never Let Me Go" is one of my favorite books ever so...sad fac.) As far as Kvothe goes, yes he is obscenely talented and perhaps too coincidentally naively alluring. But he also screws himself over often, by being too clever, too brash and too stubborn. He practices continual, unwise provocation of Ambrose, doggedly pursues entry into the library, and idolizes some of the wrong people (all of these things to his peril). Rothfuss uses these bits of character development, the books three-quarter vantage point narration, and some devilish foreshadowing (Bast's discussion of the Cthaeh) to instill the proceedings with such a pervasive sense of doom that while Kvothe will in all likelihood regain his heroism by the end, darkness and downfall are guaranteed for the third book and that is enough to keep the character interesting to me. It's worth observing that characters, particularly in genre fiction, largely act as cyphers for our entry into the world. In a book like this, my enjoyment of the character is inevitably influenced, if only to a certain degree, by my investment in the world.

Lastly, what exactly are you referencing in regards to the ages. As in the characters seem to young to be doing, thinking, saying (etc) much of what they are?

Oh that's good. And I mean that, because I'm generally really careful about my comments for that reason.

Now, I don't read much fantasy as fantasy, if that makes any sense...I'll read whatever gets my attention and sometimes that's fantasy. So I don't really lean toward completely 'fantastic' world-building, or toward 'fun-house mirror reflections' because depending on the book, I might like it either way. NotW, and for that matter GRRM, failed for me in that the world wasn't... grounded enough. Too generic, I suppose.

Re: Never Let Me Go—at least I can empathize here! I've been in otherwise fascinating discussions where they dislike a book I love. It is a very sad-face situation.

As for Kvothe: I can see what you're describing as flaws. When I was reading the book though, his brashness, cleverness, stubbornness, just didn't feel like flaws. He so often got away without any long term consequences, it seemed like everything came too easy and he didn't have to struggle. Your cipher comment is interesting...I may just wait until the third book is out with reactions, as that may be something I would be willing to read. (This is one case where I don't understand the aversion to spoilers: if I know he pulls off what you says he offers, I'd be interested, but what I've read so far just hasn't convinced me).

In regards to the ages—it just accelerated the story unnecessarily. I found it very hard to sympathize with Kvothe, as I said, because it never felt like he had to struggle unless he wanted to. Almost the entire time I read NotW, I was thinking that if most of the action had taken place over a decade or two, I'd have a lot more sympathy. Or if Kvothe had focus. Like, the Chandrian killed his parents, and he apparently he wants revenge, but so often he seemed to forget it entirely—and given that so little time goes by (relatively) it seemed odd.

And I absolutely will acquiesce when it comes to Kvothe; I understand exactly what you're intimating. For me, I guess, it is the unrelenting, pervasive sense of doom that works as his character's salvation for me. Yes, he will in all likelihood emerge from his premature mid-life mope fest and once more become the hero he always one (the one you all despise :)), but not until something devastating happens. That much is clear, and simply knowing that hardship is coming, feeling it with every hour, day, week and month that passes in his story, keeps me glued to the pages. Sure, narratively I wouldn't have minded if one driving force (i.e. discovering the Chandrian) was more consistently on the fore, but that again felt minor to me due to the series' obvious buildup to such central goings-on.

Regarding the accelerated story, however, I must disagree. I certainly understand your POV here, but it was something I actually enjoyed. Rothfuss is obviously a storyteller, first and foremost. As a writer, his priority is obviously in developing story, on a micro and macro scale, and exploring his characters and his world through it. For readers like you and Rob, this may be frustrating, while I've already articulated why it doesn't bother me much. Poor storytelling, however, is something that does frustrate me, particularly in genre fiction. As such, I was completely engaged by his stuttering structure as the narrative is built largely on an increasingly interesting series of stories. It's the classic narrative by way of anecdotes. Obviously, this style will scan as underdeveloped, poorly-paced or downright dull to some, but I enjoy the slow-burn familiarization I develop with this character and his world. Same goes for the 'Song of Ice and Fire' series. On the other hand, while Lord of the Rings is one of my favorite literary experiences of all time, the world-building by way of marathon exposition is one of Tolkien's few weaknesses in my eyes. For others, it's the best part. C'est la vie.

(Lost the first part of my post ^ somehow. All I had said was that your not reading fantasy as fantasy makes sense to me, as my inclinations toward more realistic, familiar fantasy are likely cut from the same cloth.)

I disagree with the original review. I haven't even put the wide range of books and genres I have read on here yet. I haven't even begun to scan ion my fiction collection.
I adored the name of the wind for what it was. A great piece of fiction. I go to Robert Jordan for world building, Tolkien for my Fantastic mythology needs, and GRRM for some modern fantasy written in a new way with more endearing and unloveable characters.
I loves the idea of a man looking back in an image he created In his youth that isn't entirely true. I guess is would have to read again to pick out parts I truly love since I read it so long ago.
I can say though that this is fantasy that does not need as deep a read as Tolkien, or Jordan. ;0)

The writing is extremely poetic.
Rothfuss' style ends many paragraphs that one would expect to find in a poetry book in fact.
The language was beautiful.
Resembles north America? Wtf are you talking about? Ha
Crazy.