[Hobbit]

Hal Duncan just wrote a fascinating essay on the subject of conservatism in fantasy. It's still the first post at halduncan.com, I believe.

Yes link here. (http://www.halduncan.com/)

Good old Hal, but it is an old story. Fantasy writing and readers can be very conservative, in that 'I know what I want and like' type of way.

(But not all, of course!)

It certainly is an old argument here as well.

For me, I don't mind reading about some of the usual cliches, providing that there is something there that is new. Often the journey is better than the destination.

And thanks for the cover, pat. The UK one may be better: certainly better than one of the DAW covers, anyway. :)

The only thing that puts me off is that KingKiller Chronicles strapline emblazoned on the cover. Yuk.

Hobbit

[Rob B]

I don't recall crying over cliched fantasy or "no more orphans."

The only "hype" I saw about this book was Pat's review and the "cover art/letter" from Wollheim on the ARC. When I googled Patrick Rothfuss a couple of weeks ago, very little came up on the search results. Well, not as much as I would have expected, at least.

Certainly not to the level that there was Lynch hype all over the Internet, with the Hollywood deal, his popular Live Journal and the fact that he as discovered on the internet.

This will sound like a cliche itself, but there is a reason there are cliches - there is something about them that works. Reinventing the wheel is not always the best thing.

I can think of it this way - I really enjoy beer, there are so many little variations one can add to the ingredients and beer can always be good. Just because barley, water and hops are part of most beers doesn't mean they shouldn't be.

[KatG]

Let me say to you, Rob, that I think you are always very fair in your reviews and assessments. But there's no denying that in your review for this book, you apologize on behalf of Mr. Rotfhuss for his sins of using classical mythological elements and urge us to read the novel anyway. It's the "but it is good" argument, instead of the more direct advocacy of "and it is good."

Ms. Wollheim is rebuilding Del Rey in the U.S. after throwing up her hands at trying to save Warner Aspect there. (Aspect is now getting a makeover through coordination with the much more successful UK Warner Orbit.) She has found a writer she believes to be very talented and clearly is backing the book as a lead slot title in her list. That does not mean, however, that Del Rey is only interested in epic fantasy and only those stories with mythological aspects, but it does mean it won't ignore a good story just because it has these things either.

What we seem to have here is a tale of hoped for revenge -- the Count of Monte Cristo and such, which then gets much more complicated. I'm not sure that I'm really getting a sense of the characters enough to know if I'm truly interested yet, but that Rotfhuss has been able to invoke passionate interest in his characters from a number of readers is certainly a sign worth investigating, even if others found themselves not that into it.

As for covers, I find the U.K. one looks like a bad horror cover and is kind of bland. Of the two U.S. choices, the one with the mask is the kind of treatment they used to do for Gothic romantic historical novels. The full-on portrait shot of the other one is the most intriguing for me, because the red-headed guy seems to be carrying a guitar or reasonable equivalent, and he looks as if he either just got beaten up or killed somebody, which makes me curious. I don't automatically like traditional fantasy art -- I was just noticing how boring a number of those covers are today -- but this one was arresting. And since I haven't apologized for carrying sff books with colorful covers since I was a teenager, it's not a problem for me.

[Mithfânion]

And since I haven't apologized for carrying sff books with colorful covers since I was a teenager, it's not a problem for me

Well for what it's worth I don't think the rockstar cover has received so much flack is because it is brightly coloured and induces public shame but rather because it's downright hideous, and rather absurd.

I much prefer the Forest cover.

Anyway, time for Rothfuss to get his website up so we can read some sample chapters.

[pat5150]

Kat,

You are confusing Betsy Wollheim with Betsy Mitchell. Wollheim has been with Daw for 30 years...

As for Rothfuss' website, I'll let you know as soon as it goes live. Hopefully it will be this week.:)

Patrick

[Drew Bowling]

Rothfuss is published by DAW, not Del Rey.

Drew

[Eventine]

I am falling on the floor laughing here. What happened to the ravening mob that demanded no more orphans ever?

Probably still getting moist over having discovered all those authors who are doing the "new" fantasy. Patting themselves on the back for being edgy, mature , gritty dark and oh so very, very real.

Bring on the princess to be resuced I say.


I'll freely admit I was part of that camp for a while. What changed me? Greg Keyes.

Now I realise good books are just good books, asnd often not despite the tropes they use but because of them. And I'll read this one. Maybe I'll like it, maybe I'll be underwhelmed. Only way to really find out is to ignore the hype and read it.

Here's a question regarding the hype Rob - why mention the cover letter on the ARC in the review? I'd much rather hear what you've got to think about the book than the publisher, and if you think it's the best debut in 30 years - your lack of vested interest makes for a more honest opinion.

[Rob B]

that I think you are always very fair in your reviews and assessments. But there's no denying that in your review for this book, you apologize on behalf of Mr. Rotfhuss for his sins of using classical mythological elements and urge us to read the novel anyway. It's the "but it is good" argument, instead of the more direct advocacy of "and it is good." I never meant to apologize for Rothfuss (or any author). If you are rerferring to this: Rotfhuss does not spin the genre on its rear in the same way, he simply tells a wonderful, story of fantasy - more than anything I didn't want readers who may have picked up the book to think Rothfuss was writing in a similar style to Bakker or Duncan, in particular.

Here's a question regarding the hype Rob - why mention the cover letter on the ARC in the review? I'd much rather hear what you've got to think about the book than the publisher, and if you think it's the best debut in 30 years - your lack of vested interest makes for a more honest opinion.I think it was worth mentioning for two reasons:

1) It stood out to me and was something I don't know has been done. At least I never saw it before.

2) Many of my reviews do mention the cover. I like to mention the phsyical aspect of the book.

[pat5150]

Here's a question regarding the hype Rob - why mention the cover letter on the ARC in the review? I'd much rather hear what you've got to think about the book than the publisher, and if you think it's the best debut in 30 years - your lack of vested interest makes for a more honest opinion.

When Matt Bialer contacted me about this novel back in September, I was intrigued, of course. But when he mentioned that Betsy Wollheim considered this the best damn debut she has ever read, I knew I needed to read this thing! How could I not!?!

If my contacts at Tor Books send me an email, asking me if I'd consider doing an early read of something Tom Doherty claims to be the best fantasy debut he has ever seen, I want to read this novel. NOW!:D

Honestly, I had never heard/seen Betsy Wollheim make such a claim, so of course my curiosity was piqued. I also mentioned it in my book review. And I think that every critic/reviewer/book seller who got an ARC were intrigued by her cover letter which appeared on the ARC's front cover.

As for hype, it's only ever important if the book lives up to it...;)

Patrick

[KatG]

Yes, I did mix them up, which is particularly funny because I worked at NAL which partnered with DAW and Betsy Wollheim had an office two corridors away from me. My bad. Ignore that paragraph. DAW of course has a long history of presenting and supporting epic fantasy.

Mith, sorry if I sounded snide about the cover treatments. Many people have said they are embarassed by traditional cover art and this tends to sadden me. Some people simply don't like it, but I am not one of them, though I don't require it either. For me, the U.K. cover is static and visually lacking interest in line and shape. The window image is an old one and the hooded, monk-like figure is a stock image for horror, which this book does not seem to be. The imagery has little apparent connection with the title. It's an okay cover, I'm just not wowed by it and probably wouldn't pay much attention to it on a shelf. It's a relatively safe approach.

The first U.S. cover with the face is well-done and classical in composition. It is very similar to the sort of cover that they would do for Rebecca-like historical fiction in the 1970's and 1980's, and as such for me is less interesting and a little dated. The second U.S. cover is interesting to me for several reasons: I like that the figure has a musical instrument instead of a weapon, but appears menacing. I like how the figure is blended in with the wind, leaves and background. I like how the artist used color/light and shadow. I like the ambiguity of the image -- that it is not clear whether the figure is emerging from the wind, controlling the wind or being sucked away by the wind, whether the figure is a victim or attacker, and whether the figure is entirely human or something else. I don't find it silly, but instead complex and intriguing. Tastes vary. But then again, covers have nothing to do with the actual book.