The Name of the Wind

[nuttz96]

It is one of the most enjoyable series I have ever read, but the second book was a bit of a let down for me. They foreshadowed so many things in the first book (Kvothe having all the element rings, him being the reason for the war, monsters coming after him, etc), yet the second book barely touched on any of this. It was still a good read, but I was expecting the plot to move a bit faster. As the series is suppose to be a trilogy, I don't see how he can possibly conclude everything in the final book.

[TooNice]

Edit: I'd like to point out that I'm not trolling nor fishing for a flame fest, but I honestly think the reviews that suggest why you shouldn't read an author or book are just as telling, if not more so, than why you should.

they do do that, when there's more reason than not. with the name of the wind there's very little reason. but there are still definitely some quite critical reviews, and it's also possible to be quite critical even when you love a book, which many reviews have been, but you seem to want them to conjure up reasons for negativity that don't exist. and no, they shouldn't give more reasons why not than why, we're fans of literature and if they feel we'd be better served by reading a book than not, the review should reflect that and do its best to convince us to do so, not convince us otherwise. that doesn't make any sense at all. your whole stance is ridiculous. you seem to just want every reason not to read this book, and you're expecting positive reviews to name as many flaws as a negative review, forgetting that 'flaws' in fiction are subjective and down to taste.

[teahupoo]

All that matters is that Rothuss is better than GRRM.

Not trying to start a flame war or anything.

[Contrarius]

I think I'll have to read Name of the Wind again. There were several things I didn't like about the book, but I didn't think it was actively bad -- and I'd like to see if I can figure out why so many folks are so wild about it.

One of the biggest things I didn't like: I couldn't stand the character of the younger Kvothe. This is a type of character that just completely turns me off -- oh so perfect and brilliant and capable and arrogant. I could forgive this if it were the *younger* Kvothe doing the narrating (in which case it would be natural for him to think highly of himself), but instead this is the OLDER Kvothe/Kote telling us what a wonderful kid he used to be. He doesn't appear to have any perspective on his younger self at all, and that annoys the hell out of me. Whyinthehell should I care about an arrogant braggart who is still an arrogant braggart after he grows up?? That's not somebody I really want to invest in -- and given that he's the main character, that really destroys a lot of my interest in the book as a whole.

One of the biggest things I DID like: the name of the book. Seriously, it's a great title. It's mellifluous, it's romantic, it's evocative. It was the big thing that drew me to the book in the first place.

So -- if I do read it again, what do you think I should watch for? What did I miss the first time around?

[PeterWilliam]

Hey Contrarius,

With Rothfuss' books, I think you have to approach it in the same way that you would approach Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun series. Specifically in that the story is narrated by an unreliable narrator. With Kvothe narrating a story about himself, you're getting the romanticized version of everything he did. You have to distill it to get more objective views. For example, Kvothe likes to portray himself as someone who is always sticking up for those who need protecting and taking it to people who prey upon others (i.e. the wealthy, privileged classmate he has a grudge/vendetta going with). In its more distilled form, Kvothe is simply someone who is stubbornly confrontational and doesn't know 'when to say when.' By that, I mean something a history professor mentioned in class once, which was that from General Custer back to Christ, people choose the hills they die on. Kvothe can't seem to understand that not every hill needs a battle to the death.

I understand some of the difficulty with Kvothe's characterization, however. He is portrayed as the consummate good guy, superiorly intelligent, affable, artistically ingenious, struggling against circumstances that would seek to oppress him....hey, you'd have to be a real jerk to be anti-Kvothe, right? Yeah, didn't really like how Rothfuss wrote the reader into a corner on that one. But is that the author's intent, or is it the character's voice being more then generous with himself?

[Contrarius]

I understand some of the difficulty with Kvothe's characterization, however. He is portrayed as the consummate good guy, superiorly intelligent, affable, artistically ingenious, struggling against circumstances that would seek to oppress him....hey, you'd have to be a real jerk to be anti-Kvothe, right? Yeah, didn't really like how Rothfuss wrote the reader into a corner on that one.

Rothfuss doesn't make me care about the younger Kvothe -- and IMHO, that's a great failing in an author. I DID care somewhat about the older Kote -- embittered, worn out, hiding -- and I wanted to see more of him -- but when an author fails to involve the reader in his own main character, it's hard to see what's so wonderful about the book as a whole.

[Bastard]

What also gets dismissed is how Kvothe balances is strengths with his failures. We can talk about how he thinks he's awesome, etc. etc. but he'll be the first one to admit about his failures.

[TooNice]

I think I'll have to read Name of the Wind again. There were several things I didn't like about the book, but I didn't think it was actively bad -- and I'd like to see if I can figure out why so many folks are so wild about it.

One of the biggest things I didn't like: I couldn't stand the character of the younger Kvothe. This is a type of character that just completely turns me off -- oh so perfect and brilliant and capable and arrogant. I could forgive this if it were the *younger* Kvothe doing the narrating (in which case it would be natural for him to think highly of himself), but instead this is the OLDER Kvothe/Kote telling us what a wonderful kid he used to be. He doesn't appear to have any perspective on his younger self at all, and that annoys the hell out of me. Whyinthehell should I care about an arrogant braggart who is still an arrogant braggart after he grows up?? That's not somebody I really want to invest in -- and given that he's the main character, that really destroys a lot of my interest in the book as a whole.

One of the biggest things I DID like: the name of the book. Seriously, it's a great title. It's mellifluous, it's romantic, it's evocative. It was the big thing that drew me to the book in the first place.

So -- if I do read it again, what do you think I should watch for? What did I miss the first time around?

Most people don't have the perspective you're expecting from Kvothe, since we only ever experienced those times when we were kids. From memory I thought I was an alright kid, yet every time I see myself as a child in videos I can't help but cringe at the way I act, and the things I say. Besides, Kvothe is very honest about his shortcomings, he just happens to have a lot of quality traits too. Who are you to say that he's being dishonest? Have you experienced his childhood yourself?

[PeterWilliam]

What also gets dismissed is how Kvothe balances is strengths with his failures. We can talk about how he thinks he's awesome, etc. etc. but he'll be the first one to admit about his failures.

Yeah, but Kvothe's 'failures' are all of the, generally speaking, endearing type. He's shy and vulnerable with D-what's-her-name. He gets in trouble at school because he stood up for himself and fought back. He struggles with work at school because he's busy scraping pennies together to pay for things. Kvothe's failings are all very humanizing elements in the sense that we've all been there and think, "yeah, brother, I know what you mean. Ain't that the truth." *head nodding sagely*

I'll admit its slick...too slick.

[Bastard]

Yeah, but Kvothe's 'failures' are all of the, generally speaking, endearing type. He's shy and vulnerable with D-what's-her-name. He gets in trouble at school because he stood up for himself and fought back. He struggles with work at school because he's busy scraping pennies together to pay for things. Kvothe's failings are all very humanizing elements in the sense that we've all been there and think, "yeah, brother, I know what you mean. Ain't that the truth." *head nodding sagely*

I'll admit its slick...too slick.

He also blames himself when he's careless and people get injured, etc. In all, Kvothe seems to me like a very self-aware person and considering that he's a legend, that he's great at so many things, and that he thinks himself good at those things seem to be a fairly objective view of himself. If he had some sort of bad characteristic to inform of to the reader, I don't doubt he would inform us of it.

So what people see as braggart, which in some ways he is, I see more of a self aware character... be it the good or the bad. Now, how much he embellishes the stories, that I can't tell. But all evidence points towards him being as good/bad as he portrays himself to be. And he's very hard on himself, and as we've learned he has lived a very hard life, so if he's worst characteristic is that he's seems himself to be great, I really don't see much of a problem particularly when it seems to have been earned.

Also, for all the good he is, he's also quite the hard worker.

I'm only talking from The Name of the Wind perspective I got, haven't read the sequel yet.

[Arkeus]

from the perspective of someoen who only read 400 or so pages in the first book, Kvothe pissed me so damn much.

He was the exact kind of 'perfect' character that digust me, and as *everything* was about him, i gave up on too painful a read.

[Darksbane]

Richard is good at everything he does (Even women), and I've yet to see anything that suggests Kvothe isn't good at everything he does (Even women). You could attribute one to bad writing and one to a self-important PoV character, sure, but it's still not a great thing to do.

Ehn. Kvothe is not Richard, and Rothfuss is not Goodkind. I'm not going anywhere further with that point.

Funnily enough, you're right.

Doesn't surprise me. Although Tigana was not one of my favorites of Kay either. But to the point, it just shows that the style isn't really to his liking rather than the book actually being bad.

There's plenty of things I've watched (As an example) with glowing reviews that are tripe. If you look at the current broadcasting schedule in the UK, you'll see what I mean. Lots of people enjoy that stuff, lots of people rate it, but it doesn't mean it's great. Snog, Marry, Avoid? That's good? Apparently so.

But thank you, it's probably for the best that I don't read the Kingthingy Thingy.

Again, that doesn't make it tripe. That means that it wasn't enjoyable for you. There is a huge difference. Just because I didn't enjoy Scott Bakker doesn't mean his books are bad. Just because I didn't enjoy the movie Aviator doesn't mean it is a horrible movie. They just aren't built around my taste, and despite this, I'll gladly recognize that there is obvious talent involved in their writing/ producing/etc.

[3rdI]

Just to clarify something mentioned earlier...

This story will be concluded in book three. Which at the moment is called The Doors of Stone. I don't expect the name will change. Rothfuss has made it crystal clear that KKC is a trilogy. He has no plans on revisiting the Kvothe story at any point in the future. He does plan to write in the same world again.

[TooNice]

Yeah, but Kvothe's 'failures' are all of the, generally speaking, endearing type. He's shy and vulnerable with D-what's-her-name. He gets in trouble at school because he stood up for himself and fought back. He struggles with work at school because he's busy scraping pennies together to pay for things. Kvothe's failings are all very humanizing elements in the sense that we've all been there and think, "yeah, brother, I know what you mean. Ain't that the truth." *head nodding sagely*

I'll admit its slick...too slick.

He's also careless at times and prone to letting his temper get the best of him.

[Contrarius]

He was the exact kind of 'perfect' character that digust me, and as *everything* was about him, i gave up on too painful a read.

I had the same impulse as you, in large part for the same reason...but I do hate to give up on books, so I finished it. And it really wasn't a bad book, over all -- it just had a main character that the author didn't make me care much about.