SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Recommendations and Lost Books
>
Something like The Name of the Wind
Contrarius wrote: "Kevin wrote: "Do you think The Name of the Wind is a lot like Robin Hobb's Assassin's Apprentice?"Absolutely not. I'm a big fan of the Assassin trilogy, but it isn't *anything* like TNOTW."
I agree. They are similar in setup (framed, first person narration) but completely different in feel. I think Hobb is much less readable than Rothfuss (which isn't saying much as Rothfuss is one of the most readable authors I've read) so while I'd recommend The Name of the Wind to just about anyone, I would only recommend Hobb to fantasy fans.
I was thinking of 'The Magicians' as something possibly similar as well - at least having a similar kind of tone.I also disagree that 'The Assassin's Apprentice' is nothing like NotW - but I think it depends on what your criteria of comparison is. They're not similar in tone and the details of the stories are very different - but in the overall notion of a person telling his own life story from a future point holds for both: Kvothe telling his story to the Chronicler, Fitz writing his story down.
Following from that, both stories follow the protagonist from being young boys into their late teenage/early adult years, where they start to really pick up their focus.
Both have the whole 'one true love' thing going on and both, if certain theories pan out, may have their stories crossing over two trilogies.
Regardless, since the OP asked for "some fantasy literature, which follows one character. Preferable something like The Name of the Wind, but maybe with a bit more magic and epic fights?"
I would say AA fits the first criteria, but not the latter since it doesn't have much in the way of magic.
The Chronicles of Amber might qualify - though I prefer the first five (the Corwin arc) to the second five (the Merlin arc).
Based on the following one person with lots of magic and fights hubby recommends Moorcock's Elric series. He's never read NotW, and I've never read Elric, so I don't know how well they compare.
p.s. DIAF :D
± Colleen of the Crawling Chaos ± wrote: "But whatever, continue fanwanking over there and I'll continue to not care."ROFLMAO.
Actually, most of the people who have discussed the Kingkiller books with me have accused me of hating or at least disliking them. But since you didn't actually dare to try ANSWERING any of the questions I presented, I think you do get my points about attention and detail whether you will admit to it or not. ;)
As for the Assassin books -- gee, yes, they are both stories that use framing. Big whoop. That's not exactly what either the OP or Kevin were asking about, in terms of relevant similarities.
As for more recommendations -- the OP really doesn't give enough info on which aspects of NOTW he/she hopes to recapture in other books. Thousands of books out there focus on one character; thousands have magic and fighting and youngsters growing into manhood. Does the OP specifically want first person narratives? That would rule out my first idea (Harry Potter). Does the OP specifically want lots of hand-to-hand combat, or does magical combat count? Does the OP specifically want a bildungsroman, or would a main character of any age suffice? Is the OP more interested in the emotional journey, or the physical plot? We just don't really know enough to be a lot of help.
Rachael wrote: "I think Hobb is much less readable than Rothfuss (which isn't saying much as Rothfuss is one of the most readable authors I've read) so while I'd recommend The Name of the Wind to just about anyone, I would only recommend Hobb to fantasy fans. "Actually, I feel just the opposite about readability. However, I'm also an absolute sucker for emotional drama. One of the reasons that I didn't especially care for NOTW on my first reading was that most of it did not really hit me on an emotional level. IMHO Rothfuss is better than Hobb in the intellect of his writing, but Hobb is better than Rothfuss in the emotion and compulsive readability of hers.
"Actually, I feel just the opposite about readability. However, I'm also an absolute sucker for emotional drama. One of the reasons that I didn't especially care for NOTW on my first reading was that most of it did not really hit me on an emotional level. IMHO Rothfuss is better than Hobb in the intellect of his writing, but Hobb is better than Rothfuss in the emotion and compulsive readability of hers."That's really interesting. Hobb was almost a bit too over the top for me in terms of emotional content. I still couldn't put the books down though :)
Rachael wrote: "Hobb was almost a bit too over the top for me in terms of emotional content."Yeah, that's a common complaint about Hobb.
Craig wrote: "I really enjoyed The Magicians as well. I find people either love it or hate it though since the protagonist spends half the book whining."This is one of those books I'm really interested in partly because of all the hatred for it. :) It's definitely on my list.
Ahahaha, fanwank, that's gold :P
Nicki wrote: "I find it quite hilarious that you accuse Colleen of not having read closely enough, when you present question #1 as though it belongs to NotW instead of WMF."Damn, I just rechecked. Although one of the clues is indeed in NOTW, I misremembered which book contained an essential poem -- it is actually in WMF. So you are absolutely right to correct me on this one. But since Colleen couldn't answer *any* of the questions, I don't think my slip is the end of the world. ;)
"perhaps you should be taken to task for not reading closely enough. ;)"
Oh heck, I know there's STILL lots of stuff I don't know about either book. And I've only read WMF once, so I know I've missed a ton of things there. I'll most likely do another reread when The Doors of Stone comes out, whenever that ends up being.
Nicki wrote: "Since you've been called out by someone who not only CAN answer your questions but can illustrate that your reading of the text is insufficient to qualify you to ask them, I'd say that yes, your slip is the end of the world -- or at least the end of the validity of your argument."Speaking of fallacies, that's a straw man. ;)
Fortunately, I never claimed to know everything there is to know about either book. In fact, I have stated a coupla times that I *don't* know everything about them and am ready to learn more. So I have no need to be perfect in my knowledge about them.
I did claim, however, that NOTW is a book that rewards close attention. I then implied that Colleen had not given the book that close attention -- and thus, by further implication, had not given the book a fair chance before she dismissed it. And since she has -- to make you happy, I'll say "declined to answer" instead of "shown herself unable to answer" -- *any* of the questions I posted, I continue to stand by that claim. :)
Now -- would you like to actually participate in the relevant subject of the thread, and provide some book recommendations for the OP?
Sorry, I just noticed your previous post.Nicki wrote: "Incorrect. It can be guessed that [spoilers removed], and the name [spoilers removed] appears nowhere in the book, nor does the woman who is probably Kvothe's aunt. In fact, I just did a text searc..."
Sorry, you've confused me here. The essential clues I'm referring to are the rhyme used by Kvothe's father -- which I misremembered as being in NOTW when it's actually in WMF; the rhyme in NOTW that Kvothe learned from a village girl about the "seven things", and his mother's reaction to it; and Sim's naming of the (view spoiler), also in NOTW. Of course there's more clues than that in WMF, which I already said.
We've already established that she didn't like the book and doesn't want to re-read it, because she didn't like it the first time around. Why is this difficult to grasp? Why does it matter so much? Also, the OP made this thread a year and a half ago.
Nicki wrote: "Contrarius wrote: "Speaking of fallacies, that's a straw man. ;)"Nope. Straw man involves misrepresentation of your opponent's position. I did not represent your position at all in the statement ..."
Oh, for heaven's sake.
Yes, you did misrepresent my position. I did not claim to know everything about the book, therefore my position is not damaged if I do not know everything about the book. All that is necessary to maintain my point is that I know more about the book than Colleen does. I don't even need to know more than you do, since you yourself admit to liking the book.
As for tangents -- that actually started with Colleen's insults about both NOTW itself and people who reread books. But Colleen seems to have already bowed out of the discussion, so how about getting back OT yourself?
Valerie wrote: "We've already established that she didn't like the book and doesn't want to re-read it, because she didn't like it the first time around. Why is this difficult to grasp? Why does it matter so much?..."Ask Nicki. She seems determined to continue the tangent.
Valerie -- what do you think about any books similar to NOTW? Have you started The Magicians yet?
Valerie wrote: "Also, the OP made this thread a year and a half ago. "
Yep. This is an old thread, which is why I don't care that it's gone off track and there's arguing.
Sometimes it's fun to watch theworld burn discussion.
Yep. This is an old thread, which is why I don't care that it's gone off track and there's arguing.
Sometimes it's fun to watch the
Nicki wrote: "I am greatly amused that you need to cling to your own rightness in this rather than admitting that your inability to even distinguish which book a fundamental mystery of the series occurred in suggests that maybe, just maybe, you aren't qualified to be the judge of who paid enough attention and who didn't."Another straw man, since I already acknowledged quite openly that I misremembered which book the rhyme was in -- and, as already stated, since I never claimed to have perfect knowledge of either book. :)
I know that you wish to defend your buddy Colleen, but you're really getting pretty ridiculous here.
After you, dear.
Oh, but I already contributed to the OP's question, several times. First, I offered the Harry Potter series as a likely possibility. Then, I commented on similarities or lack thereof between Hobb's books and Rothfuss. And I also posted several additional questions that we need to have answered in order to provide good recommendations.
Your turn. :)
Nicki wrote: "Therefore, you were unable to meet the standard you attempted to hold Colleen to."
Damn -- you do love the straw men, doncha?
I wasn't requiring Colleen to answer all of the questions perfectly. She didn't answer ANY of them.
Here's what I actually said: "These are just a few simple examples of the intellectual hints and puzzles hidden throughout both of the books so far. There's a lot of more complicated themes and variations and mysteries and such that can be noticed with careful attention, but these few small examples should be a fair illustration of the general principle that these books do reward careful reading."
Keep trying. You'll figure out my actual position eventually. Maybe. ;)
Craig wrote: ""LOL! I love it. :)
Darn it! I was just getting out the popcorn!
Contrarius wrote: "I wasn't requiring Colleen to answer all of the questions perfectly. She didn't answer ANY of them.Here's what I actually said: "These are just a few simple examples of the intellectual hints and puzzles hidden throughout both of the books so far. There's a lot of more complicated themes and variations and mysteries and such that can be noticed with careful attention, but these few small examples should be a fair illustration of the general principle that these books do reward careful reading."
Keep trying. You'll figure out my actual position eventually. Maybe. ;) "
Sheesh - you go out for the night and look what happens... Ala wrote: "Ahahaha, fanwank, that's gold :P"
You're welcome. That's probably not it's exactly proper context, but, still, it fit.
Valerie wrote: "We've already established that she didn't like the book and doesn't want to re-read it, because she didn't like it the first time around. Why is this difficult to grasp? Why does it matter so much? "
Excellent question. Why does it matter so much? Why can't people allow contrary opinions without having to prove that the people who have those opinions are inferior in some way, and therefore wrong. (How can an opinion be wrong?)
(Also, for those following the fallacies issues, I'm not entirely sure if it would fall under ad hominem or some variation thereof.)
So, anyway...
No, I didn't bother answering any of the questions in the stupid quiz. And ya know why, 'cause I didn't care to. I didn't want to get into this whole drawn out drama. I was tired of getting treated to a variation of "you're stupid because you didn't like a book I liked" and the lambasting by fangirls and boys about "hating the book" and "GTFO" and whatever else.
And, also, because while I had read something about Kvothe's mother and how he probably met his aunt because of the Lackless connection from the riddle, I couldn't remember either of their names because... I didn't care.
When WMF came out I browsed around different discussions about the book to try and get a feel for whether I should give it a shot after I was less than enthused about the first book. That's when I came across various discussions like the aunt thing, and some other some such clues and things... and I didn't remember them because it all related to a story/character that I didn't care about and so I never bothered to remember what they were, and reading about those various clues and tidbits in no way, shape or form changed my original impression of the book.
If anything reading a lot of the stuff about WMF just made me not want to read it because of the all the awesome sex and the increased power of Kvothe's Gary Stu-ness.
Besides, even if I had answered them you could've easily claimed that I just googled the answers - which would've been true having forgotten them, as I said, and I figured the goal posts would've just kept getting moved and that the whole thing was pointless anyway.
I don't like to get into pissing contests about opinions. Despite what people like to think - and we all do - opinions are not objective fact. You can't prove an opinion and, in general, you can't dissuade someone from their opinion. So I don't try. And, frankly, it kind of pisses me off when people try to do it to me. And, from my perspective, that's when I started getting snippy - because all I saw was yet another person trying to convince me that my opinion is wrong or uninformed or whatever just because it doesn't agree with their opinion.
I don't care whether you liked Kvothe or not. I don't care whether you like the book or not. I'm not going to try and convince you that it's mediocre, even though that's my opinion, so why do people who like books seem to think it's ok to try and convince people that didn't like it that it's really brilliant and they're just too stupid to realize it? (Stupid, or careless, or whatever. It all amounts to the same thing.)
So, yeah...
Contraius wrote: "As for tangents -- that actually started with Colleen's insults ... "
Um, no. Not even remotely. The tangents started well before I got involved in the thread.
I'm sort of gobsmacked by the fact that Stan, who wrote about vomiting about Kvothe and his awesomeness and whatnot, gets a pass in all of this. Stan started talking about Kvothe being a Gary Stu. Admittedly, I think he did so more in reference to WMF than NotW, but he started the whole "hating on" Kvothe.
Ala, knowing my opinion of the book, mentioned my name, which is when I came into it agree with Stan.
I still don't know how I became the target for the fanboy/girl rage in all of this.
Or maybe you missed Stan's comments. His sarcasm. Maybe you didn't read the thread closely enough...
But let's go back to the quote:
"Colleen's insults about both NOTW itself..."
O noes! Someone has a contrary opinion about a book that I like! I must defend it by showing that she didn't read it with a fine tooth comb so that I can ignore her opinion and go back to pretending everyone in the world loves this book!
Srsly?
"and people who reread books."
I call Straw Man on this one. I did not insult people who reread books. I reread books myself - book that I like.
What I said is that I didn't understand the impulse to reread a book you didn't like in the hope it'll be better the next time around. That's not an insult - that's a statement of my opinion. I really don't understand the impulse.
Now I'm not going to pretend I didn't throw a dig in at you about the rereading it thing - but it wasn't because you reread the book, it was your motive for doing so and, honestly, I'm sure that's the real stickler. As you yourself have pointed out you call yourself Contrarius so for me to take a dig at the fact that you reread a book just to fit in with the crowd - well, I can see how that would stick in your craw.
And I won't try and pretend that I didn't mean it that way, either, 'cause I did. I get so tired of the majority rules thing that happens on goodreads so much. "Well, so many people like it so it MUST be good."
No - so many people like it so it MUST be popular. And some popular things are good (subjectively speaking) and some popular things are crap (subjectively speaking).
I get tired of people telling me I only dislike a book because it's popular. ('Cause, ya know, I hate all popular things. Like Harry Potter. And Neil Gaiman. And Terry Pratchett. And the Dresden files. And Steampunk. Hate 'em all... ) [That's sarcasm, btw. I know it's hard to detect sarcasm in text sometimes.]
So, yeah, I made the dig about your motives for rereading the book and I also still think that the fact that you reread it seemingly with the intention of liking it means you're pretty much guaranteed to come out liking it.
Contrarius wrote: "I did claim, however, that NOTW is a book that rewards close attention. I then implied that Colleen had not given the book that close attention -- and thus, by further implication, had not given the book a fair chance before she dismissed it."
Ya know what - fine. NotW is a book that rewards close attention. I'm sure there are secrets and riddles and puzzles that I didn't pick up on. Quite frankly, even with books I like and have read multiple times there are things I miss or forget.
But, to me, a really accomplished writer can weave in these little secret and riddles and puzzles and still write multi-dimensional characters and a story which doesn't leave me irritated a third of the time, bored another third of the time, and mildly interested the other third.
And the whole thing about "giving it a fair chance". I read the book - what more of a chance does it need? Having to read it with a fine-tooth comb to parse out these riddles is not, to me, a pleasurable or rewarding experience.
It did for you, great. Whatever.
But you yourself also said it didn't work for you on a visceral or emotional level, as it didn't for me. I'm not interested in going back to appreciate it on an intellectual level if I didn't like it the first time. I see no point. It's a book. I didn't like it. There are tons of other books I want to read and reread.
A book gets one chance to grab me. This book didn't do it. You seem to think that a "fair chance" may require multiple readings, just because it did for you. 1) That's a hell of a definition for 'fair chance'. Would I have to keep reading it until I also realize Rothfuss' greatness and 2) Just because it worked for you that way doesn't mean it would work for others that way.
See, that's where the whole opinions being subjective and whatnot thing comes from. People are different. They work and think and act differently. What works for you won't necessarily work for me. I'm disinclined to reread a book I didn't like on the off-chance I might like it more the second time. If that means that I haven't given it a "fair chance" by whatever definition you're using - then so be it.
The book just doesn't work for me. I doubt rereading it will change that opinion, and I'm not challenged enough by you to reread it just to prove something.
(Quick tangent. I do understand the whole "everyone liked this book... maybe I missed something" reaction. I really do. I have never had that impulse actually drive me to reread the book. I have had that impulse lead me to read about it on forums and in discussions... read reviews, both pro and con... which I did for NotW, and as I've done for many other books in which I found myself in a minority position. I have yet to ever come across an argument compelling enough to change my opinion of a book.
I have, however, had my feelings towards a book grow more and more negative the more fanboys and girls feel the need to try and convert me to their opinion, though.
I guess I'm just contrary that way... )
Where was I?
Contrarius wrote: "All that is necessary to maintain my point is that I know more about the book than Colleen does. I don't even need to know more than you do, since you yourself admit to liking the book."
I think this was my favorite part, actually.
I'm not sure which part I like best, though. The appeal to intellectual snobbery, i.e. "someone doesn't know the nooks and crannies of a book and, thus, her opinion is invalid" (it's kind of up there with the "as a literature major I can say that this book was good and you're an idiot for thinking otherwise") or the "Well, it's ok if you don't know all the answers to the questions, because at least you liked it. I mean, never mind that people who liked the book probably couldn't answer most of these questions 2 or so years after reading it, but people who didn't like it absolutely should be able to answer them or else I can prove they didn't read it with enough scrutiny and then I win and my opinion is proved victorious!"
And you wonder why I "bowed out" earlier? This whole thing is so fucking ridiculous I can barely wrap my mind around the absurdity of it all.
But, then, I'm probably just not examining it closely enough.
Nicki wrote: "Righty-o, it's been half an hour. I'm calling it. Time of death, 2:37 AM. Thank you for indulging the tangent, Ala. ;) Off to play with the Steam Halloween sale."Awww. It's almost sweet that you were waiting by the computer for me with stop watch in hand....almost like a lonely girl without a date waiting by the phone on a Friday night. ;) Oddly enough, though, I don't feel any requirement to meet your timetable -- and some of us do have a Real Life to attend to occasionally.
I'll read through what has been posted since the last time I checked, and see what is worth responding to. Stay Tuned.....
Nicki wrote: "FYI, "straw man" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. It's used to refer to implying that your conversational opponent held a position similar to, but misrepresented/simplified from what they actually stated, and then attacking that position."That's pretty much right. A straw man is an example of misrepresentation. In your case, you have claimed that my argument is invalid because I do not have perfect knowledge of NOTW. You are claiming that "perfect knowledge" is a necessary part of my argument. However, it is not. Therefore, you are misrepresenting the argument.
There -- short and to the point. :)
I'll try to keep this substantially shorter than Colleen's tome --± Colleen of the Crawling Chaos ± wrote: "Excellent question. Why does it matter so much? Why can't people allow contrary opinions without having to prove that the people who have those opinions are inferior in some way, and therefore wrong. (How can an opinion be wrong?)"
That's an excellent question, and one which I would like you to answer yourself.
Colleen, when you stated that you didn't like the book, I specifically replied with SUPPORTIVE comments. I said "Yeah, that's okay" and "Kvothe IS an insufferable Gary Stu, in some ways" and "I definitely do agree that the guy is a big Gary Stu" and "I was really really irritated at Kvothe's Gary Stu-ness myself". I was *supportive* of your position, not condemning.
The problems started when YOU started slyly insulting people who didn't agree with YOU. All I had said was "I got a lot more comfortable with the concept after I read it for a second time. I definitely do agree that the guy is a big Gary Stu, but now at least I can understand some of the reasons behind making him that way... "
Your yourself admit to making digs -- "Now I'm not going to pretend I didn't throw a dig in at you about the rereading it thing" and "And I won't try and pretend that I didn't mean it that way, either, 'cause I did." and "So, yeah, I made the dig about your motives for rereading the book" -- so just get over your silly protestations of innocence. In actuality, nobody was attacking you -- you were the one doing the attacking.
"And the whole thing about "giving it a fair chance". I read the book - what more of a chance does it need?"
Reading it *with attention* helps. It certainly isn't any kind of requirement to do so, but it does get irritating when somebody (not necessarily you -- I'm using a general "somebody" here) condemns a book that they haven't paid much attention to. There are some reviews, for instance -- here on Goodreads and elsewhere -- that have annoyed the heck outta me because they state things that are demonstrably untrue about the books they are reviewing. If you (general "you", not specific) are gonna condemn a book, at least get the facts straight.
"But you yourself also said it didn't work for you on a visceral or emotional level, as it didn't for me."
That's not exactly what I said, but close enough. And yes, this failure to make a real emotional impact is one reason why I rated the book at 4 stars instead of 5 (despite your accusations about me being a "fanboi", I do not actually think that this book is the greatest thing since sliced bread). The first time I read it I gave it 3 stars, so I never really hated it, but I certainly did (and do) feel more emotional distance from it than from books like, for instance, the Farseer books.
(Now, if you really want to see me fly off into fanboidom -- or, in my case, fangirldom -- just get me involved in a discussion about Joe Abercrombie or The Steel Remains. THEN you'll have some real reasons to slap that label on me. ;) )
And now I am off to feed critters, and then to bed!
I AM NOW GOING TO HIGHJACK THIS THREAD SO THAT I CAN ARGUE ABOUT ARGUING!!! YEAH LET'S ARGUE SOME MORE ABOUT ARGUING!!! WHO NEEDS RECOMMENDATIONS ANYWAY WHEN WE CAN ARGUE ARGUE ARGUE!!!well i'm not sure who exactly i'm aiming those comments at, but i felt it had to be said.
Here's a question. I've been following this thread, though I must admit that I might not have been following it with the attention it deserves.Anyway...I've read NOTW twice and WMF once. I loved both books, giving them 5-star reviews. I have NOTW listed as a "favorite". I read them both THIS YEAR.
But I don't remember all the fine details y'all have played make or break Colleen on. And she read it a couple of years ago. I didn't retain the intellectual genius of the books, just the feeling that I enjoyed them and will probably read them again in the future.
I'll reread them because I love the books. Not because I'm trying to impress anyone or come to some quasi-religious understanding. I read for pleasure, nothing more (which might lead to some questions for the shitty books I've been reading of late, but that's not here nor there).
So here it is. Without having the finely remembered details entrenched in my brain, is my opinion also invalid? Even though I loved the books, or do I get a free pass because I'm in the "approved" crowd? There's the question.
Oh, and as long as I'm around, Nicki won't have to be lonely enough to be forced to interact with trolls. All she's got to do is message me.
BTW, there are straw
Seriously...I think this entire thread needs to be in a book. F'ing hilarious.
MrsJoseph wrote: "Seriously...I think this entire thread needs to be in a book. F'ing hilarious."
Good idea. Then we can use it towards our reading challenge goals.
Hate to give you guys another tome to read, but here you go. Feel free to including it in your reading challenges. ;)(Brevity and concision of thought has never been one of my strong suits. Kind of ironic, really. But, then, I'm one of the few people who doesn't try to write a book 'cause I know it'd be over-written.) ;)
*****
Contrarius wrote: "Colleen, when you stated that you didn't like the book, I specifically replied with SUPPORTIVE comments. I said "Yeah, that's okay" and "Kvothe IS an insufferable Gary Stu, in some ways" and "I definitely do agree that the guy is a big Gary Stu" and "I was really really irritated at Kvothe's Gary Stu-ness myself". I was *supportive* of your position, not condemning."
It's funny how perception works. As they say, there's always three sides to a story - his side, her side, and the truth.
Yes, you were "supportive" in that you agreed that Kvothe acts like a Gary Stu. But that's not all you said. What you said was: "Kvothe IS an insufferable Gary Stu, in some ways. But that's part of the point of the story, after all...."
It was the last part that initially made me twitch because when I read that I thought:
'Oh sheesh - here comes another person who's going to try and convince me that Kvothe's Gary Stu-ness is a planned aspect of his character because Kvothe is an unreliable narrator telling his story... so it's not Rothfuss' wish fulfillment little fantasy that makes Kvothe a Gary Stu, it's a clever choice on Rothfuss' part to make Kvothe the unreliable narrator so any Gary Stuness can be excused as an aspect of the character.
I mean, that belies the whole "this is my story as it really happened" aspect of the story.
*sigh*
I really don't want to get into another discussion with someone trying to convince me that Rothfuss is some kind of genius for making Kvothe unbearably annoying. Whatever - I'll just blow him off.'
And that was a fairly accurate portrayal of my underlying thought process when I wrote: "So I've been told... Still doesn't make me like it any better."
The "so I've been told" being an attempt to capture the notion that, yes, I've had this discussion before and, no, it hasn't changed my mind and, no, I'm not interested in having the discussion again.
Frankly, I was hoping it would drop at that point.
Then there was you saying as how you got more comfortable with "the reasons" for his Gary Stu-ness in a re-read, and I made me comment about not understanding the impulse to reread a book you don't like. I've already covered that that wasn't meant as an insult - it was an honest statement of my opinion on the matter.
Then you came back with the whole "I reread it because soooo many other people loved it, and I suspected that I had missed something important the first time around. And, as it turned out, I was right. I found a lot more to like about the book the second time I read it."
I've already comment on the fact that, yeah, I made a dig about your motive for re-reading the book.
To wit: "I'm glad that you found more to enjoy the second time around, but I don't tend to assume my opinions are wrong just because they're in the minority. *shrugs*"
Once again – not a comment on you liking the book. Having nothing to do with the book, actually, aside from my not liking it, and everything to do with the concept of “people really like it so it must be good”. (I won’t belabor that issue as I’ve already done so in my first “tome”.)
But I also didn’t like the growing implication that I, too, must’ve missed something. That I, too, would benefit from a reread. That there’s so much to like about the book if only I’d give it “fair chance”. Or, in other words, yet another attempt by someone to convert me out of my opinion – the precise thing I had suspected was coming from the outset.
Contrarius wrote: “Reading it *with attention* helps. It certainly isn't any kind of requirement to do so, but it does get irritating when somebody (not necessarily you -- I'm using a general "somebody" here) condemns a book that they haven't paid much attention to. There are some reviews, for instance -- here on Goodreads and elsewhere -- that have annoyed the heck outta me because they state things that are demonstrably untrue about the books they are reviewing. If you (general "you", not specific) are gonna condemn a book, at least get the facts straight.”
Once again the assumption that because I didn’t like the book, didn’t, perhaps, pick up on all the subtle riddles and whatnot that I wasn’t paying attention.
I do agree, in general, that it annoys me when people get demonstrable facts wrong in a review. But you have implied and outright stated that I clearly haven’t read it with the required amount of attention to give it a “fair chance” based on the quiz that a) many people who liked it also couldn’t answer (but that’s ok that they didn’t “pay attention” ‘cause they liked it) and b) that Nicki has shown couldn’t be fully answered with just reading the first book anyway.
Sure, sure, you don’t mean me, “necessarily”… You’re just speaking in general terms. You’re not at all saying that you think that *I* didn’t read it with close enough scrutiny which is why I don’t appreciate its many layers and nuances… even if you pretty much guaranteed it earlier.
Contrarius wrote: “That's not exactly what I said, but close enough. And yes, this failure to make a real emotional impact is one reason why I rated the book at 4 stars instead of 5 (despite your accusations about me being a "fanboi", I do not actually think that this book is the greatest thing since sliced bread). The first time I read it I gave it 3 stars, so I never really hated it, but I certainly did (and do) feel more emotional distance from it than from books like, for instance, the Farseer books.”
The fanboy and girl comments were more directed at Rachael and Mach, actually. I thought that would be clear from my paraphrasing of their “gtfo” and “why are you even here” comments. I suppose I can understand why you thought it was all directed at you, though, since I did accuse you of fanwanking earlier.
(FWIW, I, personally, do think the whole ‘but Kvothe is meant to be a Gary Stu because it’s him telling his story and of course it’s filled with hyperbole and it’s not bad writing on Rothfuss’ part but rather a character choice’ is a bit of fanwaking. I can see the argument for it to an extent – there are the parts where Kvothe admits to embossing the truth a bit – but there are other times where he says it’s the honest truth and if he’s an unreliable narrator we can’t trust those bits either, which, to me, makes reading his story even less interesting. It’s like the blowhard we all know who tells fish stories of himself while people nod and roll their eyes and think “Yeah, ok Bob, whatever”.
But some people like the unreliable narrator theory and it works for them and more power to them. It doesn’t work for me and I’m not inclined the give Rothfuss to benefit of the doubt on that one, personally. )
And I never spelled it fanboi. *shudders*
Chris wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "Seriously...I think this entire thread needs to be in a book. F'ing hilarious."
Good idea. Then we can use it towards our reading challenge goals."
:-D
Nicki wrote: "I'm glad you feel so passionately about a year-and-a-half-old thread that the moderator doesn't mind us hijacking, even if this is, er, the only thing you've posted in it. ;)"oopsy, i misspelled "hijack". my bad!
This thread is ridiculous, anyone who cares enough about the book to come and find similar books or to discuss it must have thoroughly enjoyed it. And if you're anything like me you tore through it so fast you never realized just how massively long it was (your sense of time goes a bit awry when you forgo food and sleep in favor of reading).You all enjoyed it, now you're nitpicking it rather than giving suggestions to people looking for something new and (hopefully) as good.
Which is fine, I don't mind people discussing this book. But come on, do it right!
There seems to be two main view heres. One is that the first book was great and the second a bit silly but also very good. The other is that both books were a waste of time, everything was bad, the main character is stupid. Why? No reason is give, some people just want to complain.
I loved Name of the wind, it is without doubt my favorite book. And I also loved The Wise Man's Fear, it was quite a bit different than NOTW but really the only thing largely different is that a lot happened in it as opposed to NOTW. People complain that be became a capable hero and a bit... a lot... of a playboy. This happens, you fight, you gain abilities, you train in new arts. The world doesn't magically adjust to your new strength, you get stronger and the world stays the same. That's kind of the point.
As for his... escapades, He spent who knows how long with Sexy fairly lady. You don't spend that much time doing everything you want and then just quit it when you get back to the real world. It was a necessary part of the story. From his experience with Felurian and the many girls there after he gained the confidence and experience needed to better handle Denna and hold his own against Kings and such things.
Setting that aside I need something to read, winter is coming and reading is one of the only things to do when it's cold and dark.
I've read Eragon and liked it well enough. The Night Angel Trilogy was a great read. I'm looking for something similar, no urban, no modern. Just a good fantasy with a male lead.
And I apologize in advance if my post seems aggressive or rude at all, I don't mean to be. I'm just trying to join the conversation.
Try Shadow's Son(our current BotM) and it's sequel. It's got a similar vibe to Night Angel.
And, if you haven't read them yet, give Robin Hobbs Farseer books a looksee.
And the Mistborn trilogy by Sanderson.
Basically, the same stuff that's been suggested earlier in the thread :)
And, if you haven't read them yet, give Robin Hobbs Farseer books a looksee.
And the Mistborn trilogy by Sanderson.
Basically, the same stuff that's been suggested earlier in the thread :)
I'll give Farseer a try but I'm looking for something less on the dark side and more on the heroic (save the princess... then bed her afterwards!).Shadow's sun has some pretty mixed reviews, looks like a hit or miss kind of book. And it's pretty darkly themed as well.
Mistborn... I've heard nothing but good things about it but It just couldn't catch me. Something about his writing style just doesn't interest me at all.
For reference I also enjoyed The Demon King series (Seven Realms series) but skipped over almost all of the female parts (female character and female oriented).
I read the first Mistborn book but didn't really see how it was similar to TNotW. :T Some really original ideas, though.Since somebody earlier asked why Farseer was being recc'd/how it was similar, so I'm just going to use my boyfriend as a reference: he wanted something that followed a single character, something fantastical that wasn't too stereotypical, and with decent/above-average prose. And no lie, Assassin's Apprentice was the first book I had read after he made his request that I felt comfortable reccing to him.
We're both interested in The Magicians, so at some point I'll borrow that from the library and give it a read.
Nicki wrote: "Crazyapple wrote: "Mistborn... I've heard nothing but good things about it but It just couldn't catch me. Something about his writing style just doesn't interest me at all."Hmm. It seems you gave..."
Hmm, oh. I was trying to use this sites recommendation system but I needed a few more books to rate. I knew that people with similar taste in books all loved it so I figured I'd give it a high rating and reap the benefits.
To my dismay I learned that no matter how manly your book list is this site just keeps spitting out slutty vampire novels and similarly stereotypical preteen girl books.
Basically not a single book I wanted to read. The site requested The Game of Thrones series (whatever it's proper name is) and I hated that, loathed it... with some serious heat.
I'm guessing the Kevin thing is some joke that's over my head and at my expense.
But it's all fair.
I'm curious about how The Magicians keeps coming up? Isn't it some kind of modern magic book based in New York? That's about as far as you can get from NOTW. Seems like a strange recommendation.
Crazyapple wrote: "I'm curious about how The Magicians keeps coming up? Isn't it some kind of modern magic book based in New York? That's about as far as you can get from NOTW. Seems like a strange recommendation. "I think it's the aspect of following one main character, as well as the "magical school" setting.
eta: Also, as Nicki said, the automatic recommendation feature is really quirky. You might be better off asking the general community (Recommendations -> Ask for Recommendations), but results from that can be sparse and the quality mixed.
Crazyapple wrote: "To my dismay I learned that no matter how manly your book list is this site just keeps spitting out slutty vampire novels and similarly stereotypical preteen girl books. ..."Crazyapple, you could try:
The Lies of Locke Lamora
The Gilded Chain
The Blade Itself
Blood of Ambrose
The Red Wolf Conspiracy
Chris wrote: "LOL. Bad Nicki....." yeah, hahahahaha, hilarious! it's always so funny to mock new folks by comparing them to other folks! it's fun for both parties! and is the absolute limit of wit and class, Chris & Nicki! so clever! lolzcat!
gag
Ooh, Thanks Mark! See some good suggestions there.Honestly you had me at "The Gentlemen Bastard."
So I'm having a bit of trouble finding out when we can expect the 3rd book in the Kingkiller Chronicles. I just read them both not too long ago but from what I can tell there was around 4 years between them.
I don't know if I car survive that long!?! Am I really looking at another 4 years?
That's a long time to wait for someone who just got into reading, especially someone as picky as I.
mark wrote: "Crazyapple, you could try:The Lies of Locke Lamora
The Gilded Chain
The Blade Itself
Blood of Ambrose
The Red Wolf Conspiracy"
I've heard lots of good things about The Lies of Locke Lamora and it seems to be recommended a lot - bought it and the sequel a while back and will be getting to them soon. :D I've never heard of The Gilded Chain and Blood of Ambrose, thanks!
valerie & crazyapple - no problem! i hope you enjoy at least some of them. especially Locke Lamora & The Blade Itself, i really love those two.crazyapple - don't be put off by The Blade having a disfigured torturer as a lead character. the tone is much more light than Game of Thrones. it is a fun book.
as far as waiting 4 more years... i think probably yes. ah well
mark wrote: "valerie & crazyapple - no problem! i hope you enjoy at least some of them. especially Locke Lamora & The Blade Itself, i really love those two.crazyapple - don't be put off by The Blade having ..."
I actually started reading The Blade Itself a few months ago, I was too early in to really tell whether or not it was going to be good. Then some nice weather came along and I went back to cycling and kind of neglected my children..... Wait, I mean books!
I'll pick it back up eventually but I really dislike restarting a book like that, and I'm not one for switching between several characters POV. I'll just randomly feel motivated to read it one day then all will be right again.
Nikki:
To be clear my tastes aren't all that precise, I'm just very new to this. I'm quite happy reading masculine fantasy books right now, Eventually I'll want to expand into other areas; steampunk, urban fantasy, I'll likely even get around to reading female POV books (my copy of Graceling could use some love).
And I did read the Iron Druid series and enjoyed the hell out of it! So I'm not completely one track.
Err, wtf maybe? Well, lowercase mark. I'll let Nicki battle with wits. I wasn't really here to mock or compare. I was actually poking at Nicki and had even considered bending her over my knee for being a bad girl.But if I were to do that, I would take it elsewhere. So I didn't.
You might like the books of Australian author Jennifer Fallon. They manage to feel old school and fresh and new at the same time.
I'm just waiting for someone to tell us to "get a room".
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Magicians (other topics)The Curse of Chalion (other topics)
The Lies of Locke Lamora (other topics)
Dragon Bones (other topics)
Mistborn Trilogy Boxed Set (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Lev Grossman (other topics)Lois McMaster Bujold (other topics)
Robin Hobb (other topics)
Jennifer Fallon (other topics)
Katya Reimann (other topics)
More...
I really enjoyed The Magicians as well. I find people either love it or hate it though since the protagonist spends half the book whining.
The sequel, The Magicians King, i was really disappointed in.