Ian’s review of The Name of the Wind (The Kingkiller Chronicle, #1) > Likes and Comments
2177 likes · Like
don't, really. :/
While I would like to respect your wished, this book was highly recmended by my brother.
Dangit. Updating from an iPhone is frustrating. No way to correct/edit prior posts.
Hehe, don't worry :D
But I'm looking forward to your opinion on it. I got lots of recommendations for it myself, and was so disappointed when I finally read it. But that's just one opinion after all!
Best review ever. Excuse me while I fall off my chair laughing.
"What I find especially interesting is my suspicion that the author was not consciously creating the Oedipal attraction. Similarly I suspect the author was not consciously creating the romantic connection between Kvothe and Bast. Maybe if I'd finished the book I would have found out that Kvothe was a gay man who masturbated to the memory of his mother. But I doubt it."
Ah! :D
Apart from my glee about your review itself, I cannot agree more, obviously. Where on earth did this novel get all it's fans from?
Ceridwen:
Regarding your hobby horse, I didn't mean to assert that poetry and music are the same, only that I think Kvothe's father stated a false dichotomy. I think, however, that I might find the area of overlap larger than you would.
Regarding the badly thought-out sex thing, I think that would be an understatement in the context of this book. It's certainly possible the author intended to hint at a more-than-friends relationship between Kvothe and Bast, and likewise possible the author intended to hint at an Oedipus complex. But my impression of the book, in general, is that it wasn't that well thought out. So I am skeptical of the notion that the author purposed to write his protagonist as a lover of men and mother.
People who love this book might ask: "What does it say about Ian that he sees a homoerotic connection and an Oedipus complex where none exist?" Perhaps I'm the one, they would argue, with hidden attractions toward men and my mother. I daresay, however, that I have subjected my sexual orientation to much more scrutiny and introspection than the average American male. I have purposefully and honestly contemplated whether I am attracted to men, ultimately concluding that I could be happy in a lifelong relationship with a man so long as he never tried to show me his penis. Thus, I am quite comfortably heterosexual, and equally as comfortable having friends of any all all sexual orientations. In that regard, one would be hard pressed to find somebody more open to discussing, and less judgmental, than me.
The foregoing paragraph is merely a long-winded way of saying that I'm not seeing ghosts. I challenge anyone who doesn't believe me to read (or re-read) the relevant passages for themselves. I maintain that Kvothe was attracted to his mother and that he has a boyfriend. Moreover, it appears to me those things were written into the book unintentionally, which provides me with no end of fascination. (If I'm wrong about the author's intent, then I'm wrong, and I apologize wholeheartedly.)
Apple: I have no friggin idea where all the fans came from. Indeed I am both shocked and stumped. The novel simply is not good enough to justify the unusually high proportion of five-star ratings.
One might consider of course that it's some huge sort of scheme going on. You know, THEM writing a novel and brainwashing previously normal-taste-readers into liking THEIR stuff :D :D
I really enjoyed this review also. I hadn't even made that connection between Kvothe and Bast before.
i hated the book. thank u for your review:)
Avivs wrote: "i hated the book. thank u for your review:)"
I'm glad to see there is international hatred for this book. You're the first Israeli I've met on Goodreads! Apple_garden (comment 8, above) lives in Germany. So people the world over are banding together in hatred. (Hmmm, when I say it that way, it doesn't sound so great.)
Haha :D Oh well, but we share the love elsewhere. .... and this sounds wrong, too.
"What I find especially interesting is my suspicion that the author was not consciously creating the Oedipal attraction. Similarly I suspect the author was not consciously creating the romantic connection between Kvothe and Bast."
i felt similarly, and read this wondering if i was just too cynical for such a wide-eyed fantasy. there is a scene later on (don't think you'd have gotten to it) in which a kindly cobbler gives the young Kvothe a tender foot rub and the narrator is so loving and warm in describing his memories of the event that i can only assume he left out the part with the blowjob.
oh also the book doesn't really get any better and i too am mystified by the adoration for it. i found it ok, with some interesting parts and a lot of boring parts.
The idea of Kvothe and Bast as lovers is squicky for at least two reasons: (1) Bast is quite clearly immature; while he may be able to pass for a human adult, he's NOT human, and we're given no way to measure how fae develop. His behavior - headstrong, impetuous, arrogant, selfish - is much more telling. (2) The stated relationship between them is that of mentor and apprentice. And while there are certainly plenty of examples in which that relationship is exploited... again: ew.
Wow. Despite The Name of The Wind being my favorite book, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your review of it. I must say however, when I first began reading, I didn't see you as being too intelligent simply from the way you spoke. But that changed quickly, so we're straight now. Anywho, just wanted to let you know that you've successfully torn apart my favorite book, entertained me, avoided offending me, and failed to change my opinion of it all at once. Thank you, twas pleasant to encounter someone who can bash something without being highly disrespectful of others' taste.
Thanks, Kenyn. I'm glad you enjoyed it ... my review, I mean, not the book ;)
If you had seen my review a month ago you'd have seen an extremely angry, insecure person who was so upset with my review that he spewed very personal, hateful invective. It was so bad, GoodReads staff ended up removing it.
While I enjoy the book, I had to "like" your review since it's pretty awesome
Ian, I gave THE NAME OF THE WIND four stars, but I think that's primarily due to societal pressure. I did enjoy the book, but you bring up many of the issues that, in retrospect, bothered me, as well. So, that said, you've managed to make me consider bumping down to three stars.
Entertaining review. Too bad I didn't get a chance to read the first one.
So, that said, you've managed to make me consider bumping down to three stars.
Now that is the best compliment you could pay to my review :) Thanks!
Heh. Just saw that you're an attorney. Is this the equivalent of your argument swaying the jury to your side? :-)
Oh, no. Swaying a jury is much easier than swaying someone's opinion about a book ;)
Why would you spend so much time writing such a long review of a book you dislike? For all your bluster, the author obviously made a deep impression on you, enough to compel you write this.
WADO wrote: "Why would you spend so much time writing such a long review of a book you dislike? For all your bluster, the author obviously made a deep impression on you, enough to compel you write this."
Given that the question posed is so easy to answer, I can't tell if this comment is in jest.
Who writes so much about a book they disliked/hated? I wouldn't write about the book this much if it turned into Scarlett Johansson.
writing a long review of a crappy book is probably a waste of time. writing an intelligent analysis of a book that has garnered a lot of praise and works in some ways and is frustrating in others and doesn't succeed for the reviewer overall... is not.
have you ever read a pan in the new yorker? those dudes are long-winded.
Joel wrote: "writing a long review of a crappy book is probably a waste of time. writing an intelligent analysis of a book that has garnered a lot of praise and works in some ways and is frustrating in others a..."
The New Yorker is so far up it's own arse it is practically a Mobius strip.
I've thought of several potential responses to Messer's Steven and WADO. The responses range from short to long, simple to complicated. But they all share a common feature: they're condescending. Why? Well, the questions posed by the gentlemen are indeed so simple to answer and are imbued with such incorrect assumptions that I have trouble believing someone would pose them in earnest. As I don't want to sound like a complete dick, I will wait until I can think of a gentle way to answer the questions. Until then, gentlemen, please see Joel's comment, supra, and please try to think of some answers on your own.
i went to a patrick rothfuss signing tonight and looked him in the eye even though i gave his book two stars! nice dude. i defend your right to think this book is overrated. we are part of a very small crowd, considering the sequel is going to be the #1 NYT bestseller next week.
oh but ceridwen, his favorite book ever: the last unicorn.
Joel wrote: "oh but ceridwen, his favorite book ever: the last unicorn."
Well that's worth bumping my review to two stars, yes?
it did warm my heart a bit. then i remembered denna and the draccus and left him at two stars. you didn't even get that far. you have no idea.
Joel wrote: "it did warm my heart a bit. then i remembered denna and the draccus and left him at two stars. you didn't even get that far. you have no idea."
I keep hoping (like I do with all the excess threads in Erikson's series) that this will have been vital by the end. :)
Ceridwen wrote: "Ian wrote: "Well that's worth bumping my review to two stars, yes?"
But...you didn't like the book, right? A rating doesn't have to be a personal attack or anything, and you haven't attacked Rothf..."
Oh, come on, C! I was kidding! How late is it in Minnesota right now?!
I did go out of my way not to make the review personal because it wasn't. I made an effort to include thoughtful criticism complete with examples and shit. You'll note that none of the people who apparently don't like my review have taken issue with any specific lines of reasoning. They just don't like my review because I dared to criticize something which they like and happens to be immensely popular. I would argue, furthermore, that implicit in Steven's and WADO's comments was a personal criticism of me taking the form of the classic "what kind of person would ..." attack.
Ha!!! It's always time for LOLcats and that one is especially poignant. There's an LOLcat for every occasion, yes?
Well done, Eh!, well done!
And, Ceridwen, you must be immature if you waste your time writing long reviews of books you don't like.
This may have been the worst book I've ever read. I know, that's a strong statement, and one I hate to make lightly, but I just can't think of a worse one.
Great review. So great I had to say so twice.
I've only ever given out five one-star reviews, so NOTW certainly is among the worst five books I've ever read. Were I forced to rank them, I don't think I'd label NOTW as the absolute worst; maybe it goes at number three behind
McCarthy's Rod
and Raymond Khoury's
The Sign
.
I always have to wonder about reviewers who spent more time on their scathing review than they spent on reading the actual book.
Matt - I think those make the most sense. You have to explain why you didn't like a book that everyone's raving about. Not to mention, if you loathe a book, you probably have a lot to say on it. It's the midling books that you're not gonna have much to write about.
"I always have to wonder about" people who criticise the length of a review that contains detailed explanations and specific examples without attempting to demonstrate why they disagree with any of the explanations or examples.
I'm starting to see, based on responses to my review, that there is apparently an unwritten prohibition against writing a detailed review on a book you don't like. Apparently it's only okay to write "I think this book is a steaming pile of shit and I can't comprehend how the masses have been duped into rubbing their noses in it." Indeed, now that I see that in writing, I realize that is a much more informative and productive, not to mention interesting and entertaining, response to a book that one doesn't enjoy. That's what I'll do next time.
P.S. I did not spend more time writing the review than I did reading the book. Just wanted to clear up that underlying factual matter.
back to top
message 1:
by
Charlotte
(new)
Apr 28, 2010 05:00AM
don't, really. :/
reply
|
flag
While I would like to respect your wished, this book was highly recmended by my brother.
Dangit. Updating from an iPhone is frustrating. No way to correct/edit prior posts.
Hehe, don't worry :D But I'm looking forward to your opinion on it. I got lots of recommendations for it myself, and was so disappointed when I finally read it. But that's just one opinion after all!
I've had this book given to me TWICE now by people I trust, but I'm apprehensive - the reviews are ALL OVER the map. I'm sure I'll get to it eventually, and I want to see what you think, too.
*waits*
*waits*
Hmmm, now this is ominous - I'm extremely sensitive to narrative voice, and narrators, and all that - although, strangely, not tense. I find it very difficult to maintain a coherent tense in my own writing, and I don't notice it in books. I have tense aphasia.
/start hobby horse
Anyway, I guess I totally disagree that there isn't a difference between song and poem, but I should have written that sentence with fewer negations so that it read: poetry and lyrics are not the same thing. Yes, there is overlap in how one might come to understand them, but that's like saying a short story and a novel are the same, and they're not. (And I always admit there's a gray area between the forms.)
/end hobby horse
As a big towering dork of the sff persuasion, I think the badly thought out sex thing is almost a convention of the genre - I've read some bad sex scenes in my day, and the worst (with the recent exception of Skye O'Malley) take place in sf novels. Interesting about the bruising - I've found that in shitty romance novels too - and it seems to be a sign of how much luuuurve the man can give. Gross, but another weird convention. Gawd, I had another response to your review, but I can't think of it. Bah.
Nice review though. :)
/start hobby horse
Anyway, I guess I totally disagree that there isn't a difference between song and poem, but I should have written that sentence with fewer negations so that it read: poetry and lyrics are not the same thing. Yes, there is overlap in how one might come to understand them, but that's like saying a short story and a novel are the same, and they're not. (And I always admit there's a gray area between the forms.)
/end hobby horse
As a big towering dork of the sff persuasion, I think the badly thought out sex thing is almost a convention of the genre - I've read some bad sex scenes in my day, and the worst (with the recent exception of Skye O'Malley) take place in sf novels. Interesting about the bruising - I've found that in shitty romance novels too - and it seems to be a sign of how much luuuurve the man can give. Gross, but another weird convention. Gawd, I had another response to your review, but I can't think of it. Bah.
Nice review though. :)
Best review ever. Excuse me while I fall off my chair laughing. "What I find especially interesting is my suspicion that the author was not consciously creating the Oedipal attraction. Similarly I suspect the author was not consciously creating the romantic connection between Kvothe and Bast. Maybe if I'd finished the book I would have found out that Kvothe was a gay man who masturbated to the memory of his mother. But I doubt it."
Ah! :D
Apart from my glee about your review itself, I cannot agree more, obviously. Where on earth did this novel get all it's fans from?
Ceridwen:Regarding your hobby horse, I didn't mean to assert that poetry and music are the same, only that I think Kvothe's father stated a false dichotomy. I think, however, that I might find the area of overlap larger than you would.
Regarding the badly thought-out sex thing, I think that would be an understatement in the context of this book. It's certainly possible the author intended to hint at a more-than-friends relationship between Kvothe and Bast, and likewise possible the author intended to hint at an Oedipus complex. But my impression of the book, in general, is that it wasn't that well thought out. So I am skeptical of the notion that the author purposed to write his protagonist as a lover of men and mother.
People who love this book might ask: "What does it say about Ian that he sees a homoerotic connection and an Oedipus complex where none exist?" Perhaps I'm the one, they would argue, with hidden attractions toward men and my mother. I daresay, however, that I have subjected my sexual orientation to much more scrutiny and introspection than the average American male. I have purposefully and honestly contemplated whether I am attracted to men, ultimately concluding that I could be happy in a lifelong relationship with a man so long as he never tried to show me his penis. Thus, I am quite comfortably heterosexual, and equally as comfortable having friends of any all all sexual orientations. In that regard, one would be hard pressed to find somebody more open to discussing, and less judgmental, than me.
The foregoing paragraph is merely a long-winded way of saying that I'm not seeing ghosts. I challenge anyone who doesn't believe me to read (or re-read) the relevant passages for themselves. I maintain that Kvothe was attracted to his mother and that he has a boyfriend. Moreover, it appears to me those things were written into the book unintentionally, which provides me with no end of fascination. (If I'm wrong about the author's intent, then I'm wrong, and I apologize wholeheartedly.)
Apple: I have no friggin idea where all the fans came from. Indeed I am both shocked and stumped. The novel simply is not good enough to justify the unusually high proportion of five-star ratings.
One might consider of course that it's some huge sort of scheme going on. You know, THEM writing a novel and brainwashing previously normal-taste-readers into liking THEIR stuff :D :D
I really enjoyed this review also. I hadn't even made that connection between Kvothe and Bast before.
i hated the book. thank u for your review:)
Avivs wrote: "i hated the book. thank u for your review:)"I'm glad to see there is international hatred for this book. You're the first Israeli I've met on Goodreads! Apple_garden (comment 8, above) lives in Germany. So people the world over are banding together in hatred. (Hmmm, when I say it that way, it doesn't sound so great.)
Haha :D Oh well, but we share the love elsewhere. .... and this sounds wrong, too.
"What I find especially interesting is my suspicion that the author was not consciously creating the Oedipal attraction. Similarly I suspect the author was not consciously creating the romantic connection between Kvothe and Bast."i felt similarly, and read this wondering if i was just too cynical for such a wide-eyed fantasy. there is a scene later on (don't think you'd have gotten to it) in which a kindly cobbler gives the young Kvothe a tender foot rub and the narrator is so loving and warm in describing his memories of the event that i can only assume he left out the part with the blowjob.
oh also the book doesn't really get any better and i too am mystified by the adoration for it. i found it ok, with some interesting parts and a lot of boring parts.
The idea of Kvothe and Bast as lovers is squicky for at least two reasons: (1) Bast is quite clearly immature; while he may be able to pass for a human adult, he's NOT human, and we're given no way to measure how fae develop. His behavior - headstrong, impetuous, arrogant, selfish - is much more telling. (2) The stated relationship between them is that of mentor and apprentice. And while there are certainly plenty of examples in which that relationship is exploited... again: ew.
Wow. Despite The Name of The Wind being my favorite book, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your review of it. I must say however, when I first began reading, I didn't see you as being too intelligent simply from the way you spoke. But that changed quickly, so we're straight now. Anywho, just wanted to let you know that you've successfully torn apart my favorite book, entertained me, avoided offending me, and failed to change my opinion of it all at once. Thank you, twas pleasant to encounter someone who can bash something without being highly disrespectful of others' taste.
Thanks, Kenyn. I'm glad you enjoyed it ... my review, I mean, not the book ;)If you had seen my review a month ago you'd have seen an extremely angry, insecure person who was so upset with my review that he spewed very personal, hateful invective. It was so bad, GoodReads staff ended up removing it.
While I enjoy the book, I had to "like" your review since it's pretty awesome
Ian, I gave THE NAME OF THE WIND four stars, but I think that's primarily due to societal pressure. I did enjoy the book, but you bring up many of the issues that, in retrospect, bothered me, as well. So, that said, you've managed to make me consider bumping down to three stars.Entertaining review. Too bad I didn't get a chance to read the first one.
So, that said, you've managed to make me consider bumping down to three stars.Now that is the best compliment you could pay to my review :) Thanks!
Heh. Just saw that you're an attorney. Is this the equivalent of your argument swaying the jury to your side? :-)
Oh, no. Swaying a jury is much easier than swaying someone's opinion about a book ;)
Why would you spend so much time writing such a long review of a book you dislike? For all your bluster, the author obviously made a deep impression on you, enough to compel you write this.
WADO wrote: "Why would you spend so much time writing such a long review of a book you dislike? For all your bluster, the author obviously made a deep impression on you, enough to compel you write this."Given that the question posed is so easy to answer, I can't tell if this comment is in jest.
Who writes so much about a book they disliked/hated? I wouldn't write about the book this much if it turned into Scarlett Johansson.
writing a long review of a crappy book is probably a waste of time. writing an intelligent analysis of a book that has garnered a lot of praise and works in some ways and is frustrating in others and doesn't succeed for the reviewer overall... is not.have you ever read a pan in the new yorker? those dudes are long-winded.
Joel wrote: "writing a long review of a crappy book is probably a waste of time. writing an intelligent analysis of a book that has garnered a lot of praise and works in some ways and is frustrating in others a..."The New Yorker is so far up it's own arse it is practically a Mobius strip.
I've thought of several potential responses to Messer's Steven and WADO. The responses range from short to long, simple to complicated. But they all share a common feature: they're condescending. Why? Well, the questions posed by the gentlemen are indeed so simple to answer and are imbued with such incorrect assumptions that I have trouble believing someone would pose them in earnest. As I don't want to sound like a complete dick, I will wait until I can think of a gentle way to answer the questions. Until then, gentlemen, please see Joel's comment, supra, and please try to think of some answers on your own.
Word.
As someone who often writes very long reviews about both the tl;df and those books that I dislike, I don't award stars just because a book makes me feel something, especially if that feeling is rage, irritation, or complete indifference. Moreover, I like reviews from people who didn't like a particular book, especially if the reviews, like Ian's, explain carefully why they didn't like it. Doesn't mean I have to agree or anything, but it helps me get a balanced picture of the reader response - all readers, not just the ones who love it. (I have no vested interest in this one either - haven't read. I doubt I will, because I know my own tastes as a reader run away from this sort of thing.)
As someone who often writes very long reviews about both the tl;df and those books that I dislike, I don't award stars just because a book makes me feel something, especially if that feeling is rage, irritation, or complete indifference. Moreover, I like reviews from people who didn't like a particular book, especially if the reviews, like Ian's, explain carefully why they didn't like it. Doesn't mean I have to agree or anything, but it helps me get a balanced picture of the reader response - all readers, not just the ones who love it. (I have no vested interest in this one either - haven't read. I doubt I will, because I know my own tastes as a reader run away from this sort of thing.)
i went to a patrick rothfuss signing tonight and looked him in the eye even though i gave his book two stars! nice dude. i defend your right to think this book is overrated. we are part of a very small crowd, considering the sequel is going to be the #1 NYT bestseller next week.
oh but ceridwen, his favorite book ever: the last unicorn.
Joel wrote: "oh but ceridwen, his favorite book ever: the last unicorn."
Totally smart writer, obiously then. :)
Totally smart writer, obiously then. :)
Joel wrote: "oh but ceridwen, his favorite book ever: the last unicorn."Well that's worth bumping my review to two stars, yes?
it did warm my heart a bit. then i remembered denna and the draccus and left him at two stars. you didn't even get that far. you have no idea.
Ian wrote: "Well that's worth bumping my review to two stars, yes?"
But...you didn't like the book, right? A rating doesn't have to be a personal attack or anything, and you haven't attacked Rothfuss, in fact have gone out of your way NOT to attack him, because he seems genuinely cool. I just. Sometimes people hang up on ratings way too much, me included.
But...you didn't like the book, right? A rating doesn't have to be a personal attack or anything, and you haven't attacked Rothfuss, in fact have gone out of your way NOT to attack him, because he seems genuinely cool. I just. Sometimes people hang up on ratings way too much, me included.
Joel wrote: "it did warm my heart a bit. then i remembered denna and the draccus and left him at two stars. you didn't even get that far. you have no idea."I keep hoping (like I do with all the excess threads in Erikson's series) that this will have been vital by the end. :)
Ceridwen wrote: "Ian wrote: "Well that's worth bumping my review to two stars, yes?"But...you didn't like the book, right? A rating doesn't have to be a personal attack or anything, and you haven't attacked Rothf..."
Oh, come on, C! I was kidding! How late is it in Minnesota right now?!
I did go out of my way not to make the review personal because it wasn't. I made an effort to include thoughtful criticism complete with examples and shit. You'll note that none of the people who apparently don't like my review have taken issue with any specific lines of reasoning. They just don't like my review because I dared to criticize something which they like and happens to be immensely popular. I would argue, furthermore, that implicit in Steven's and WADO's comments was a personal criticism of me taking the form of the classic "what kind of person would ..." attack.
Ha! I am being overly dour. It is a bit late here. Time for LOLcats?
Ha!!! It's always time for LOLcats and that one is especially poignant. There's an LOLcat for every occasion, yes?
I think I could almost hold all my conversations in LOLcat, which is why they are the best.
I admit I'm immature though.
I admit I'm immature though.
Well done, Eh!, well done!And, Ceridwen, you must be immature if you waste your time writing long reviews of books you don't like.
I know. That's how you can tell.
This may have been the worst book I've ever read. I know, that's a strong statement, and one I hate to make lightly, but I just can't think of a worse one. Great review. So great I had to say so twice.
I've only ever given out five one-star reviews, so NOTW certainly is among the worst five books I've ever read. Were I forced to rank them, I don't think I'd label NOTW as the absolute worst; maybe it goes at number three behind
McCarthy's Rod
and Raymond Khoury's
The Sign
.
I always have to wonder about reviewers who spent more time on their scathing review than they spent on reading the actual book.
Matt - I think those make the most sense. You have to explain why you didn't like a book that everyone's raving about. Not to mention, if you loathe a book, you probably have a lot to say on it. It's the midling books that you're not gonna have much to write about.
"I always have to wonder about" people who criticise the length of a review that contains detailed explanations and specific examples without attempting to demonstrate why they disagree with any of the explanations or examples.I'm starting to see, based on responses to my review, that there is apparently an unwritten prohibition against writing a detailed review on a book you don't like. Apparently it's only okay to write "I think this book is a steaming pile of shit and I can't comprehend how the masses have been duped into rubbing their noses in it." Indeed, now that I see that in writing, I realize that is a much more informative and productive, not to mention interesting and entertaining, response to a book that one doesn't enjoy. That's what I'll do next time.
P.S. I did not spend more time writing the review than I did reading the book. Just wanted to clear up that underlying factual matter.
