WoE: I think reading The Name of the Wind first kinda ruined this book for me.

[Laurențiu]

First off, the story is way too condensed. Maybe things get flushed out in later books, maybe not, i'm not sure i'll ever end up finding out. Very little charater development. Some authors do manage to seamlessly cram a lot of characters and flush them out in such a small book. Somehow i think this didn't happen here. It seems to be an abreviation of the summary of an abridgement of a series, kind of like someone trying to put the entire Song of Ice and Fire or The Darktower series inside a movie or two.

I think i should have shelled out the money and gotten the version read by Bilbo Baggins (Rob Inglis) but i went the cheap way and got the audio from Youtube which is read by the Harlan Ellison, which, in this audiobook at least, sounds like a spaz.

When you are a fan of shows like The X-files or Millenium or Fringe and you try and see a show like Kolchak: The Night Stalker it's gonna seem to you that pretty much all of the tropes in the show have been done before and of course they have been. You just saw them in the wrong order. Seems to be the case for me and this book. After reading The Name of the Wind and gearing up for The Wise Man's Fear i read some reviews of both of the books and i vaguely remember references to Earthsea but i didn't pay much heed to them. Seems to me i could have enjoyed this book a lot more if i read it before those two humongous books. You probably could fit the entire Earthsea Cycle in one of Kingkiller books and have room to spare. I don't know if that is a bad thing or not.

I know i'm being a jerk in comparing the books but it's the order i read them in.

I had to stop reading Dan Simmons' Hyperion and even though i finished that section of the omnibus, i really hated the misoginy of The Dragonriders of Pern and i didn't go any further. I think the 5-6 hour duration of this book helped it a little here and i wasn't put off as much as in the case of those other two.

I'm sure it was a good book to warrant an entire series, but it has an age, and it shows. Reading it as a kid might have made me like it more, not having read a lot of other books before it, but reading it now, i'm glad i didn't buy the series blind, as i have been known to do sometimes, without even reading the first book. I really feel bad about not liking it that much, but that's just the way it is, things will never be the same.

[Paul]

I think Rothfuss and le Guin are doing entirely different things; Rothfuss is of the modern fantasy school based on a certain amount of realism, while A Wizard of Earthsea is pure myth making. From the first sentence the beauty of the writing grabbed me. The language is mythic. It reads, to me, like a tale honed by the telling of a long oral tradition and finally delivered by a consummate bard by firelight. The structure of the story, too, is about mythic archetypes and symbolism in a way quite absent from The Name of the Wind. Perhaps this means the characters are less immediate, less personable, in much the same way as are Ulysses or Gilgamesh, or even Gandalf.

Much as I enjoyed the Rothfuss I did find it a little bloated (though far less so than many a contemporary fantasy doorstop), while I think AWoE is a superbly constructed gem of a book, with hardly a word out of place.

[George]

This wasn't awful. It just not that great! Only my opinion. That's the beauty of being individuals, we don't all have to like or dislike something.

I read this a couple of years ago and it did take me three goes to finish it. You really have to be in the mood for this. The first thing that put me off was the style of writing. I haven't been able to put a finger on exactly what the issue is, from a technical point of view it is exceptionally well written, however, it probably feels more like a research paper, which however leaves the entertainment side behind.

I agree with Paul that you cannot compare name of the wind, however, name of the wind is a much more enjoyable read.

[Michal]

Meh, I wasn't even able to finish Name of the Wind, but I love Wizard of Earthsea. Then again, I read the Le Guin first, so maybe it ruined the Rothfuss?

[Laurențiu]

Michal wrote: "Meh, I wasn't even able to finish Name of the Wind, but I love Wizard of Earthsea. Then again, I read the Le Guin first, so maybe it ruined the Rothfuss?"

My point exactly. I never ment to say that one book is worse than the other. There are bad and great things about both series. I can distinctly point flaws in Kingkiller, but it's the same with Earthsea. I'm not watching episodes of Longmire, save for the first couple i already did. When Justified ends i'll probably do it. I know they are different, but they are also too much the same for me to watch them concurrently.

[Darren]

I feel bad for you. You're going to run out of genres to read pretty fast if you can't stand the sort of really distant similarity you're talking about. Hope you get over it.

[Rob]

I'm not sure you can Rothfuss isn't concerned with myth making. He shows how legends are born, whereas here it appears we're just getting the myth itself.

And I'm not sure you can say there's no character development, OP. It's just that due to the very different nature of the narrator, we aren't just straight up told how characters are changing, we infer that based on their actions. In another thread someone mentioned how this approach helped a passage that would have, in modern fantasy, been extremely angsty, instead run smoothly (the aftermath of the attach on the hill, to our it in a nonspoilery way), and I find that I agree.

[Nathan]

I found WoES (see what I did there?) to be more condensed, more to the point. It still stands in the shadow of Lord of the Rings much more than Name of the Wind time due to the differences in time and evolution of styles.

Still, I enjoyed its approach. Compared to current books, it really strips things down to their essence. The character development was simple but effect.

Perhaps most importantly, I can recommend this to my 11 year old son without reservation, something I can not do with most of my favorite authors.

[Ribbon]

When I saw the title of this post I exclaimed out "OMG yes!" and my husband thought I was crazy but I didn't realize how exactly to put into words my feelings about this book until I read this.

Wizard of Earthsea has been on my to-read list for a while now (in fact it was on 3 of my amazon wishlists in different formats) but for whatever reason i never got around to it. I recently read The name of the wind retty much right before this was announced as the monthly pick.

I can't say how much, if at all, this book would have been different if I read it first but when reading it I always feel like something is missing. I often find myself thinking back to the Name of the Wind and getting lost while reading.

I like EarthSea, I will probably read the rest of the series. Its a good book, to me its just not as engaging as Name of the Wind.

[Kristina]

The first thing that put me off was the style of writing. I haven't been able to put a finger on exactly what the issue is, from a technical point of view it is exceptionally well written, however, it probably feels more like a research paper, which however leaves the entertainment side behind.

I totally agree with George. While the writing is pretty, it feels so unfriendly. I was never able to get lost in this one. I had to rate it a 3. While I enjoyed the story, at the end it left me feeling very meh.

[J.J.]

Though I haven't started the Kingkiller novels (probably I'm waiting for the third to come out to avoid the TV series effect!), I understand the pairing and the comparison because both series belong to a rather narrow fantasy subgenre called 'fantasy bildungsroman' (HP also falls here). However, their aims could not be more different.

I listened to the Audible version read by Rob Inglis and I was having trouble to finish it, until the very end, which amazed me. That's when I understood that WoES is more like a simple, mythic fable, with an interestingly unpretentious tone (which is lacking in most fantasy today).

I don't think it's a kiddie book, but its didactic undertone would appeal to children also.

[Nick]

I very much agree to your point as regarding the first part of the book. Although even after Ged has "grown" I felt every line could next say "...and he died" and I wouldn't have cared. This was the number one reason I knew there was no character development.

[P. Aaron]

Paul 'Pezski' wrote: "I think Rothfuss and le Guin are doing entirely different things; Rothfuss is of the modern fantasy school based on a certain amount of realism, while A Wizard of Earthsea is pure myth making...."

That nails it precisely. Wizard of Earthsea is like a fantasy reduction, boiled down to the creamy essence of the genre. That doesn't mean it lacks moments of dramatic flair. The language during the confrontation which summons the shadow ("You brag and brag..." "By my name I will do it!") stuck with me since the first reading, about 20 years ago. Crap, I'm old again. But the focus is definitely on the progress of the story, more than, perhaps, its process.
That "Realism" you note in Rothfuss means we get the fun of pages and pages of how, exactly, to make a particular magical doohickey in the University smithy...but I don't think any particular passage of Rothfuss' novels has packed the punch of LeGuin's spare style for me.

[Joe Informatico]

I'm a sucker for good, interesting world-building, and Wizard of Earthsea has it in spades (and even moreso in the sequels). Unlike other fantasy novels that use analogues of real-world cultures, or mashups thereof, Earthsea feels like its own place. The characterization is pretty sparse, but purposeful.

I liked Name of the Wind, but I've never understood why it receives so much vaunted praise. It's fun enough to read, but doesn't seem to do anything I haven't seen before.

[Mohrravvian]

I haven't read Rothfuss yet (it's on my list, but I'm waiting for all the books to be out), but I can say that I did not enjoy this book much. I found the main character unlikable, the world lacking depth and the writing very simplistic. I was quite disappointed, actually, as I've heard of this series before and thought it sounded interesting. I understand the idea that at the time, it was probably unique and ground breaking in many ways, but for me, it just didn't cut it. I'm just glad it was short so I could get through it quickly without having to Lem it.

Looking forward to whatever is on the list for next month!

[Andrew]

This discussion has moved Name of the Wind near the top of my to-read pile, as I'm curious to compare the two for myself.

Personally I like the brevity of Earthsea. Don't get me wrong, I also enjoy many authors who flesh out their worlds with lots of detail and rich prose. But I also like to read something from time to time that is less weighed down with poetry or realism, and that just pushes through with a spike of pure, hard story.