The Sword and Laser discussion
Scifi / Fantasy News
>
Name of Wind Optioned for TV
date
newest »
newest »
Hmm, interesting. Maybe Fox won't cancel it immediately. It can be like Fringe.
I think it's a normal reaction on the TV market. "Game of Thrones" is a success on HBO and now all the network's try to copy it, so I expected that we're going to see a few book adaptions over the next 2-3 years.But I'm not so sure that Name of the Wind will translate that well to a 40 minute format with it's story within a story within a story concept.
Or like they did with Locke & Key. A pilot everyone who saw it said was excellent was made. And of course Fox passed.
Mpauli wrote: "But I'm not so sure that Name of the Wind will translate that well to a 40 minute format with it's story within a story within a story concept. "I second that opinion. And at the risk of being heretical, Kvothe is just so damn annoying. They'd have to perform some serious personality surgery to make him more appealing. To me, anyway. Because, clearly, I am the target audience.
I have little faith that this will end well. Kvothe's character is really what makes the books. Also that whole part in the second book couldn't be put on basic channels.
I think sympathy duelling would look a little silly on screen, since it's mostly looks of concentration, wax moppets and candle wicking. Would Kvothe have to explain every fight later at the Eolian, narrating flashback colour commentary? There's a lot about the series that would look fantastic on the screen, though.
I think one of the biggest issues will be the fact that Kvothe can be quite annoying. There is a dearth of shows with main characters that are "bad" (Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Dexter) but Kvothe (to me, anyway) is his own brand of obnoxious. Denna is also her own kind of maddening.
I didn't think Kvothe was annoying, at all. I wonder if it's the first person narration, not common in epic fantasy, which puts people off?
The first person pov had nothing to do with it. For me it was the fact he doesn't seem a believable, or likable, character. He can do everything, has no discernible failings and the ladies just love him simply because he exists. Hyperbole aside, nothing about him in the first book could induce me to read subsequent ones. I'm not even going to get into Denna.
The best thing about that book was the world building. If there had been more time spent on that, rather than on Kvothe's quasi narcissism, it might have been a better read.
Hesper wrote: "The first person pov had nothing to do with it. For me it was the fact he doesn't seem a believable, or likable, character. He can do everything, has no discernible failings and the ladies just l..."You say the first person narration had nothing to do with it, but then you talk about his narcissism, and of course they're connected. He's recounting the story of his life, and he was a world-shaker.
Darren wrote: "I didn't think Kvothe was annoying, at all. I wonder if it's the first person narration, not common in epic fantasy, which puts people off?"He's rather arrogant and that's why I don't care for him. At least in the actual first-person parts. The interludes when he's the innkeeper are much better. He's humble and you can tell he's been brought down a few pegs.
Sure, you can't separate characterization from stylistic choices, but a first person narrative does not automatically lead to a self-involved character. It's not a strict causal relationship. There may be influence, but for me it was the least important element in forming my final impression. That was my point when I said it had nothing to do with it. I will amend it to say, the narrative choice had very little to do with my view of Kvothe.
I'm not explaining myself well, I think. I get that both of you think Kvothe is arrogant. For many people who didn't like the book, that is a main reason. So what I was wondering is whether retelling heroic deeds from a first person point of view does heighten that sense in the reader.You take a staple fantasy badass character like Conan, clearing a taproom because of a comment, then drinking it dry after. That scene gets told from the omniscient point of view, maybe we think Conan is a dillhole, or a badass, a mean drunk or a Mary Sue who can beat odds no human could. But you get the same scene from the first-person, and you see firsthand the reckless confidence of someone who would do something like that. The :
"Fuck it. I'm just going to beat the teeth out of every person in this room. No one talks to me like that."
Line of thought, that would have to be there, but is omitted in the omniscient retelling of the scene. Of course that colours the way we look at the character, because it forces us to confront that aspect.
I look at Kvothe's scenes at the University, and I hear his retelling as someone talking about what a know-it-all dumbass he used to be. Young Kvothe's arrogance is shown through the filter of Kote's regret.
This is true. There is a fair amount of self-deprecating language employed when Kvothe editorializes on his younger self, but to me it rang hollow and formulaic, like Rothfuss knew he wanted to convey a specific image but could only fall back on cliches to get it done. You're definitely right in saying that a first person POV can heighten the reading experience. It can bring an emotional intensity and immediacy to a story in a way that a limited third, or omniscient can't. I just didn't find that it did that here.
Ultimately I think it comes down to the author's ability to render a sympathetic portrayal. If you want my main reason for not caring for the book, then there it is: I don't find it well-written. Kvothe is obviously thrilling to everyone around him, so as a reader I want to feel a little star-struck too. In this case all I felt was mild annoyance at Kvothe's probable Mary Sue-ness. Those traits would have been there regardless of how the story was told.
The first person narrative is limited by what the POV character knows, and it tends to easily slip into telling rather than showing. It's a great device to use, but something about the story has to demand it (like the paranoia of "A Tell-Tale Heart," for example), and it takes skill to do well. Kvothe is annoying because he's not skillfully written, not because he narrates his own story.
Since it's an opinion, I'm not looking for agreement. There are a lot of people in love with this book; I'm just not one of them.
Fox doesn't seem like a good fit. But then again, what the hell do I know...
DAMMIT I HATE GOODREADS.I came here to post this, amazed that I would be the first....only to find that I didn't get notified about this....or about 30 other threads that got updated.
Anyway, as with all things when they get announced...I'm cautiously optimistic on it. It will be interesting to see how they weave in the "current day" stuff with the "actual story" stuff...because that current day stuff is pretty important (I think...I guess we'll see?). It will also be interesting to see how (if) they can really capture Kvothe's brilliance and stupidity...
Since it was 20th Century Fox who bought the rights, my first reaction was that it might not be on Fox proper, but rather on FX. They've been thinking about bigger budget shows for a while now from the sounds of things, might be a better fit.
Hesper wrote: "The first person pov had nothing to do with it. For me it was the fact he doesn't seem a believable, or likable, character. He can do everything, has no discernible failings and the ladies just l..."Everytime I'm left scratching my head and wondering if I've read the same books as the people who claim that Kvothe is "perfect." Dude has some serious character flaws and a life filled with pain and problems, a lot of them caused by himself. Not exactly my definition of perfect but YMMV.
Anyway, I'm slightly optimistic, but only because I believe Rothfuss wouldn't have signed any deals if he didn't have full faith that it'd turn out alright.
It's fox though. So even if it's greenlit, they will cancel it.