Dislike Kingkiller Chronicles?

[Eventine]

I have a feeling some of the perceptions related to loyalty come from reactions to subjective opinions of the work which are less than glowing.

 

[3rdI]

I have a feeling some of the perceptions related to loyalty come from reactions to subjective opinions of the work which are less than glowing.

Now that is fair. I suspect some of that comes from how I interpret discussion. I tend to debate and argue and that rubs people the wrong way. Erfael mentioned this before and I did have to take a step back and remember that this is a discussion forum not a debate forum.

 

[Ornery Wyvern]

To me the article seems relevant, not because the KKC is bad, but because it is not perfect. I think there are plenty of things which I love that would fit this mould.

I have seen plenty of criticism of the KKC here, and it does make me want to punch someone in the throat, before I take a deep breath and attempt to look at things rationally .

For the record I'm a huge fan of the books, must have read The Name of the Wind three times and listened to it twice. Not overly fond of the intro silence of three parts thing, its growing on me a little, but honestly it seems like Rothfuss is naming a little wind himself . I don't tend to take Rothfuss's motives into account when reading the books, its neat, but not terribly relevant to me as a reader.

 

[Contrarius]

3rdI has gone on about what specifically he likes about the books in other threads.

I'm looking for these. So far I've been through 3 months of his previous posts. Nothing specific so far, but I'm not giving up yet.

Edited to add -- I've worked my way back to April now, and still nothing specific. Since he only joined last November, that leaves me 4 more months' worth. Stay Tuned.

 

[KatG]

I really do like most of the first intro section, IF I can take it seriously and not conclude that Rothfuss is using it as parody of epic fantasy set-ups.

I really like the intro too, and that he wraps it into the end. But Rothfuss is both being deadly serious and doing a deconstructive, gentle breakdown parody of the phenomenal hero/chosen one myth -- King Arthur, etc. It's like an onion, it has layers. Rothfuss is exploring the nature of a prodigy both in real story terms and in slightly exaggerating those terms satirically. He's looking at how remarkable things in their own right are then mythologized into legendary things that are not necessarily accurate, at how tragedy can come out of this on a serious basis -- loss, madness, destruction, while also tweaking at the grand tragedies epic fantasy may heap upon various Horatio Hornblowers. So there's a dragon and it's serious and sad and important to Kvothe's development, but there are satiric funny aspects to the dragon as well in light of all the dragon stories we tell. There's a dalliance with a fairy and it's passionate and poignant and important to Kvothe's development, but there are satiric aspects to it from all the legends of such dalliances. It's kind of like those pictures:

Which image do you see?

It's a difficult balance. I think he mostly pulled it off in Name of the Wind. I liked the serious stuff better too. I liked the prose and imagery better than his dialogue -- but that was partly in that I was not looking at his dialogue quite so closely from the satiric side. If you see the villagers at the inn in Kvothe's present day, for instance, they are both very serious portrayals of minor but emotional characters and send-ups of stock villagers in fantasy and historical fiction. The ideas sort of overlay each other. Rothfuss is not the first to do this by far, or even to combine it with music and madness, but it is very colorful and often rich, the old lady and the young woman together.

 

[thirstyVan]

You still have not proven a thing. I gave metrics, listed reviews, gave solid supporting arguments. Anyone who can honestly say The Kingkiller Chronicles has not been a massive success is simply wrong. The article and discussion that followed had nothing to do with like vs. dislike.

The entire point of this discussion was whether or not the article thirsty posted applied in this instance. Thirsty posted an article about fanboism. The article's main point, was that a certain type of personality will call something good even if that thing performs poorly. By every rational, logical metric KKC has performed extremely well. Therefore the argument does not apply in this case.

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. The point of the article was that certain types of people will defend a product or brand against criticism because they see that criticism as reflecting on not only the brand, but themselves as well, not simply that some people will defend something if they like it, even if it's bad. While the article specifically mentions "poor performance" (as you already quoted), but that is not the whole point, merely an example. Quote from the article,

Have you ever found yourself frothing at the fingertips while explaining why someone doesn't deserve to use an iPhone because of their deeply flawed sense of aesthetics? Have you been the type to declare that those who don't use Android are cylons who are under mind control from Cupertino? Or are you Peter Bright, turning up your nose at all of us while you wax on about the unappreciated genius of the Windows 7 Phone?

You may think you're defending your favorite platform because it's just that good. But, according to a recently published study out of the University of Illinois, you may instead be defending yourself because you view criticisms of your favorite brand as a threat to your self image

Clearly no one is claiming Apple, for example, is not a success. But certain types of people will still defend it vehemently from any tiny criticism.

Your argument is flawed because you're making the false equivalence that good sales and critical reception preclude "poor performance". "Performance" in this context can be any opinion, such as the negative opinion of ones peers on a favorite message board.

 

[3rdI]

I really like the intro too, and that he wraps it into the end. But Rothfuss is both being deadly serious and doing a deconstructive, gentle breakdown parody of the phenomenal hero/chosen one myth -- King Arthur, etc. It's like an onion, it has layers. Rothfuss is exploring the nature of a prodigy both in real story terms and in slightly exaggerating those terms satirically. He's looking at how remarkable things in their own right are then mythologized into legendary things that are not necessarily accurate, at how tragedy can come out of this on a serious basis -- loss, madness, destruction, while also tweaking at the grand tragedies epic fantasy may heap upon various Horatio Hornblowers. So there's a dragon and it's serious and sad and important to Kvothe's development, but there are satiric funny aspects to the dragon as well in light of all the dragon stories we tell. There's a dalliance with a fairy and it's passionate and poignant and important to Kvothe's development, but there are satiric aspects to it from all the legends of such dalliances. It's kind of like those pictures:

Which image do you see?

It's a difficult balance. I think he mostly pulled it off in Name of the Wind. I liked the serious stuff better too. I liked the prose and imagery better than his dialogue -- but that was partly in that I was not looking at his dialogue quite so closely from the satiric side. If you see the villagers at the inn in Kvothe's present day, for instance, they are both very serious portrayals of minor but emotional characters and send-ups of stock villagers in fantasy and historical fiction. The ideas sort of overlay each other. Rothfuss is not the first to do this by far, or even to combine it with music and madness, but it is very colorful and often rich, the old lady and the young woman together.

Well said. If you remember I touched upon the satire very early on when I joined. Nice that someone else sees it too.

I love those kinds of images btw. I have seen the first and third images before but not the second. Very cool.

 

[3rdI]

I understand your point thirsty but I do not buy into it. I cannot see the correlation as their is no intrinsic link between an external object and a person's self image. It seems a massive stretch. If someone doesn't like something I like that has nothing to do with who I am as an individual. I think a more relevant argument could be made for simple ego. The need to compete. Why do people debate? Why do people feel the need to prove another person wrong? It is competition and it is written all over our DNA. Obviously things have changed over 4 million years. We are no longer competing over mates or hunting grounds. But that need to compete is still there.

 

[Eventine]

OK, this is a reminder to everyone on the thread to avoid making any arguments personal. I understand that's a bit hard to do given the nature of the article being discussed, so please try and be civil at all times and keep in mind that tone can be easily misconstrued in this style of discussion.

 

[Eventine]

I cannot see the correlation as their is no intrinsic link between an external object and a person's self image.

Isn't that the whole point of the study? That they believe they have shown there is a link, and have conducted the experiment to prove their hypothesis?
That was my interpretation of the article at least. Without forking out for the paper I couldn't say more.

 

[thirstyVan]

I understand your point thirsty but I do not buy into it. I cannot see the correlation as their is no intrinsic link between an external object and a person's self image. It seems a massive stretch. If someone doesn't like something I like that has nothing to do with who I am as an individual. I think a more relevant argument could be made for simple ego. The need to compete. Why do people debate? Why do people feel the need to prove another person wrong? It is competition and it is written all over our DNA. Obviously things have changed over 4 million years. We are no longer competing over mates or hunting grounds. But that need to compete is still there.

I agree that the article itself isn't proof of anything, in fact it seems like maybe they made some pretty big assumptions based off limited data, but we'd have to see the whole study to know that. I don't think it's something we're going to answer on this board.

I'm not trying to imply that the article is a description of YOU, personally. I just think it's interesting, and hey, maybe it's right. Maybe not. It's worth discussing.

 

[3rdI]

I agree that the article itself isn't proof of anything, in fact it seems like maybe they made some pretty big assumptions based off limited data, but we'd have to see the whole study to know that. I don't think it's something we're going to answer on this board.

I'm not trying to imply that the article is a description of YOU, personally. I just think it's interesting, and hey, maybe it's right. Maybe not. It's worth discussing.

I agree that it is interesting. What do you think? Do you think the article is on to something or do you think it is simply a competition thing?

 

[Eventine]

I'm not trying to imply that the article is a description of YOU, personally. I just think it's interesting, and hey, maybe it's right. Maybe not. It's worth discussing.

Others have been doing more than implying though Van, so as I said before, let's try and be courteous and avoid the ad hominim attacks.
(Or, on the lighter side, are they ad fanboynim attacks? )

 

[teahupoo]

I'm looking for these. So far I've been through 3 months of his previous posts. Nothing specific so far, but I'm not giving up yet.

Edited to add -- I've worked my way back to April now, and still nothing specific. Since he only joined last November, that leaves me 4 more months' worth. Stay Tuned.

LOL, you silly foo. If anyone sound like the fanboi defending his "product" it's you. You are sifting thru a year of post from one person in hopes that you find the PROOF and come out victorious.

Now that you have found them and reading them you realize you are wrong, (3rdi has been very detailed about why he likes KKC). Will you, like the crazy fanbois, keep defending your product?

 

[Contrarius]

But Rothfuss is both being deadly serious and doing a deconstructive, gentle breakdown parody of the phenomenal hero/chosen one myth -- King Arthur, etc. It's like an onion, it has layers.

Unfortunately, my brain has trouble with this as applied to TNOTW. If I take it seriously, then Kvothe is a serious Gary Stu -- and I can't get too invested in him. And if it's a parody, well, then it's not a serious drama -- and I can't get too invested in him. So, either way, I end up not invested in what happens to the character.

The one "out" I can envision right now is if Rothfuss ends up pulling a Prince of Thorns on us -- ends up giving us a reason why Kvothe is so good at everything. But I reserve the right to change my opinions at any moment.

 

[Contrarius]

I understand your point thirsty but I do not buy into it. I cannot see the correlation as their is no intrinsic link between an external object and a person's self image.

I'm not gonna quibble about whether links are intrinsic, extrinsic, or otherwise -- but the whole consumer industry proves that there are many such links. Shiny red sports cars, Italian shoes, whatever -- much of it is about self image.

 

[Contrarius]

LOL, you silly foo. If anyone sound like the fanboi defending his "product" it's you. You are sifting thru a year of post from one person in hopes that you find the PROOF and come out victorious.

Now that you have found them and reading them you realize you are wrong, (3rdi has been very detailed about why he likes KKC). Will you, like the crazy fanbois, keep defending your product?

Huh?

Incidentally -- I had to go do other stuff for awhile, so I haven't gotten past April yet. Still nothing detailed from 3rdI about quality in the KKC, although I have found another thread with him debating sales and popularity numbers. But I'll try to get to the April-November posts some time tonight.

 

[3rdI]

Unfortunately, my brain has trouble with this as applied to TNOTW. If I take it seriously, then Kvothe is a serious Gary Stu -- and I can't get too invested in him. And if it's a parody, well, then it's not a serious drama -- and I can't get too invested in him. So, either way, I end up not invested in what happens to the character.

The one "out" I can envision right now is if Rothfuss ends up pulling a Prince of Thorns on us -- ends up giving us a reason why Kvothe is so good at everything. But I reserve the right to change my opinions at any moment.

I understand your point but I really do not think Kvothe is a Gary Stu. Going into the story you know from the get go that it is the story of one of the most powerful wizards in the history of the Four Corners. Being good at things would be logical. You need to read further on, because Kvothe makes an incredible amount of really bad decisions. Very un Gary Stu like. The older Kvothe is often poking fun at the younger Kvothe as he recounts his story. Kvothe's weaknesses and mistakes are just as relevant to his character as his strengths. To me that makes for a compelling character.

 

[teahupoo]

The real reason i started this thread was because I thought pat's blog was funny and I wanted people to share in my opinion. I thought his Dr Seuss delivery of the pictures was awesome. And when deciding how to write the post introducing the link to the website, i decided to write my own verse.

Patrick was trying to win over a grumpy KKC hating Dr Seuss character with picture and ideas for why he might like it. So that is why i titled it "Do you dislike Kingkiller Chronicles".

I had no idea this tread would turn out the way it has. I'd hoped my poem might soften some hearts.

I guess when the first person responding, attacks and pokes fun at fans with a link that has nothing to do with the thread... well you see what happens. (Thirsty would make a good Dr. Seuss villain his heart is 3x's as small)

I ain't mad at thirsty. I can understand his knee jerk reaction to the subject of KKC fans. He, like KKC fans thinks their opinion is correct, so obviously the other persons is wrong. I admire his desire to defend his belief. But, I think the article applies to fans and haters. Why such a strong desire to attack the fans?

 

[3rdI]

Huh?

Incidentally -- I had to go do other stuff for awhile, so I haven't gotten past April yet. Still nothing detailed from 3rdI about quality in the KKC, although I have found another thread with him debating sales and popularity numbers. But I'll try to get to the April-November posts some time tonight.

It might just be possible that you like to debate as much as I do. Just don't get too smug you might have caught me with The Princess Bride but that doesn't happen very often Check your pm and tell me what you think.