Dislike Kingkiller Chronicles?

[Contrarius]

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.

I gotta go think about other stuff for a few hours, but I'll try to get back to this later tonight. Incidentally, I did check out the page of KKC quotes you linked to somewhere or other, and I enjoyed them quite a lot.

 

[Sfinx]

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 [...] 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?

Is not my impression. I don't see knee jerk reactions from Thirstyvan or others, i see people who wonder about the vehemence with which a particular series are defended. Hence the link to the article - the main message of which for me is the link between a product and a person -> if the product is 'attacked' the person feels attacked as well. So i don't think there is a 'strong desire to attack the fans', I think there is a curiosity about this mechanism. An altogether different question though is whether these boards, and typed communication, are ideal to do this. I don't think they are. So let's concentrate on the stuff these boards are meant for: discuss books!

Cheers,

Sfinx.

 

[AmethystOrator]

I hope you don't think I'm Adema Ruh.
If Kvothe finds out he may Stab me thru.

I was enjoying it until I got to the very end and saw that you rhymed "Ruh" with "thru". I've always thought that "Ruh" had a hard sound like the beginning of "reward" or the word "thrush". I don't know the official pronunciation, but obviously it makes a difference *if* I'm right.

Regardless, thanks for the hard work.

 

[AmethystOrator]

What hilarious timing!

I just read this article over at Ars Technica.

What do you think?

In all honesty, and this is a topic that I've spent some time considering, I think that it applies to some fans very much, some a little bit, and some not at all.

And I would also very much guess that it applies in the reverse, the people that find one or more parts of a book so off-putting to them personally that they attack a work in extreme ways.

I think it ridiculous to assign the article's reasoning to everyone who might feel strongly about any subject without getting to know their individual reasoning in depth.

 

[AmethystOrator]

Which image do you see?

I like this one specifically because I can't help but see both at the same time.

 

[AmethystOrator]

People rush to the defense of the KKC like nothing else on this board, at least that I've seen.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but in my case, KKC strikes a cord in me like very, very few other works have. For me, KKC is worth defending to an extent greater than just about anything else. And the others that I feel strongly about don't usually get brought up, or have other defenders, or are popular enough that they don't need a strident defense. For example, in different ways, I like ASOIAF on the same sort of level as KKC, but most people have read it and so can make up their own minds. And I'm sure that if someone were to claim that ASOIAF sucked and didn't deserve any acclaim then there would be others who would defend it. That often isn't the case with KKC, and the few people that do defend it then have their objectivity questioned, so imo it does make sense that you see this book defended in a way different from some others.

 

[AmethystOrator]

I am surprised the series is as popular as it is, I never would have expected it to be this popular had I read it first (without the hype). Seems like one of those books that just meshes with a lot of people--for this era. I am also surprised at some of my friends unwillingness to give it a chance too. It's definitely worth a read, even if I don't rate it up there with my favorites.

For me, some of the reasons that I love it so much are all of the little hints and clues scattered throughout. People can, and have, spent hundreds or thousands of hours dissecting it and theorizing about various aspects that are not obvious on a casual read.

I find Kvothe to be one of the more realistic and relatable characters that I've ever read about. The book is very much about the "journey" and not "the destination" which is something else that I quite like. And for me, the book exudes a wonderful sense of warmth and welcome.

I'm sure that many people won't find this, or care about it if they do, but for me these elements help to elevate it to a beloved work, even if it might not shine in some other criteria that is important to someone else.

 

[AmethystOrator]

OTOH it's also got some inconsistencies, like Kote being so adamant about not revealing his identity to the first traveler that recognizes him, then instantly caving to Chronicler without even putting up much of an effort.

Perhaps that is proof that Kvothe is unreliable? Or quick to change is mind?

Personally, I believe that he is being deliberately misleading in the frame sequence for a specific reason and that very little that we read there should be taken at face value.

But once we get to Kvothe's early life, I start seeing problems -- like we're supposed to believe that he has learned all about regional law at age 8, and that he's memorized all the plays by age 11. This very quickly gets into Gary Stu territory for me, at which point I get very annoyed.

Imho, Kvothe *is* a Gary Stu if the reader is only paying attention to the surface.* For one, he is skilled and naturally talented in some ways (not that that's unusual in many fantasies), and I think that to some extent that is purposeful to contrast him with so many other fantasy characters who are "naturally gifted".*

But, he also does a good job of mostly applying himself in those areas where he excels, and is talented at avoiding those others where he is not.* I could give very small spoilers to demonstrate, or large ones, but unless you want me to, I will refrain.* Also worth nothing imo, is that the book takes place entirely in the first person and we see ample evidence that Kvothe is not a completely reliable narrator (and in at least one or two ways, quite flawed).*

 

[AmethystOrator]

I think there is a curiosity about this mechanism. An altogether different question though is whether these boards, and typed communication, are ideal to do this. I don't think they are. So let's concentrate on the stuff these boards are meant for: discuss books!

I think that message boards can work well in understanding others, but that such involves a lot more effort than most people are capable of making. How often are questions posed in a nonjudgemental way wherein there is no agenda other than a sincere desire for understanding? Imo, not often.

A great start would be understanding that different people have different preferences and that the way that each of us views something might not bear much relation to someone else's perception.

For example, some people care greatly about "realism" in a novel when it comes to weapons and combat. That is not something that I care about in any way, shape or form, but I respect that it means much more to others. So I accept that and move on. But ime others don't always do so. Some make their assessments in simple summaries that speak of "good" and "bad" and "like" and "dislike" and "well-written" and "poorly-written", when imo these things have no real meaning beyond that which the writer assigns to them.

Some people read a work like KKC, and finding one or more issues with it, or something not to their tastes, decide that the book is "over-hyped", or that it's defenders are "fanboys" or "delusional", and imo such is entirely unwarranted. Further, by this strong language those people who do enjoy it can feel attacked, and then may not be as patient in the future. It is a process that can build a divide, and then deepen and exacerbate it. And ime most observers then choose one "side" and ignore the flaws in their "side" and rail against those in the "other".

Readers who do not like it can understand why their opinions differ from others, but only by asking genuine questions and by honestly being open to understanding. Sadly, I just don't think that such is usually the case.

 

[3rdI]

I think that message boards can work well in understanding others, but that such involves a lot more effort than most people are capable of making. How often are questions posed in a nonjudgemental way wherein there is no agenda other than a sincere desire for understanding? Imo, not often.

A great start would be understanding that different people have different preferences and that the way that each of us views something might not bear much relation to someone else's perception.

For example, some people care greatly about "realism" in a novel when it comes to weapons and combat. That is not something that I care about in any way, shape or form, but I respect that it means much more to others. So I accept that and move on. But ime others don't always do so. Some make their assessments in simple summaries that speak of "good" and "bad" and "like" and "dislike" and "well-written" and "poorly-written", when imo these things have no real meaning beyond that which the writer assigns to them.

Some people read a work like KKC, and finding one or more issues with it, or something not to their tastes, decide that the book is "over-hyped", or that it's defenders are "fanboys" or "delusional", and imo such is entirely unwarranted. Further, by this strong language those people who do enjoy it can feel attacked, and then may not be as patient in the future. It is a process that can build a divide, and then deepen and exacerbate it. And ime most observers then choose one "side" and ignore the flaws in their "side" and rail against those in the "other".

Readers who do not like it can understand why their opinions differ from others, but only by asking genuine questions and by honestly being open to understanding. Sadly, I just don't think that such is usually the case.

**offers AO both water and wine**

 

[AmethystOrator]

**offers AO both water and wine**

Well, thank you kindly for the hospitality 3rdI, but I am but a humble poster with no real knowledge of wines, and as such, it would be wasted on me. Perhaps I might some day learn, but for now, honest water is enough for me, and I would be happy to accept it if you will accept my thanks in return.

 

[Chuffalump]

You know what the WORST thing is about KKC? The very worst thing?

My local library never has the first book in the series, so I can't read it to see what all the discussion is about.

 

[molybdenum]

I think Kat nailed the book down with her post. But I do think we are first supposed to see it as a story, and read it as such. The parody stuff is supposed to be something in a little deeper, just like those clues about the Lackless's, the idea of Kvothe's name carrying a great deal of significance, the door of forgetting Kvothe hid behind in Tarbean, etc. (If you want to look at a lot of the in depth stuff I highly recommend the KKC re-read over at TOR.com. It is absolutely fantastic, though the author does accept far too many theories as actual fact.)

So I read it as a story first and foremost, because as Contrarius says, reading it as a parody probably doesn't give it the same impact. But I appreciate the parody elements of it. That said, I cannot see Kvothe as a complete Gary Stu. He has too many character flaws. That is the role he fulfills in the parody, but he is too confrontational, too high of an ego, and far too concerned with his reputation to be that Gary Stu. Is he unbelievably clever? Sure, but people are like that in real life as well, and I've never heard a real life person called a Gary Stu. As a result, I can get very invested in Kvothe, even though I'm almost nothing like him.

And as AO says, Kvothe is not good at everything, he just tends to avoid those areas he's not so good at.

 

[3rdI]

Well, thank you kindly for the hospitality 3rdI, but I am but a humble poster with no real knowledge of wines, and as such, it would be wasted on me. Perhaps I might some day learn, but for now, honest water is enough for me, and I would be happy to accept it if you will accept my thanks in return.

No no wine it is for you. We also have ale if you prefer. An excellent stew over by the fire. All we ask in return is a story or a song

 

[teahupoo]

no no wine it is for you. We also have ale if you prefer. An excellent stew over by the fire. All we ask in return is a story or a song

yes! Yes! A song! :d

 

[Contrarius]

Perhaps that is proof that Kvothe is unreliable? Or quick to change is mind?

Personally, I believe that he is being deliberately misleading in the frame sequence for a specific reason and that very little that we read there should be taken at face value.

It is impossible for Kote/Kvothe to be an unreliable narrator in the frame sequences, because he *isn't the narrator at all* in those sequences. The frame is told in 3rd person. So if the reader can believe ANY of the book, it should be those sequences.

edited to add --

Imho, Kvothe *is* a Gary Stu if the reader is only paying attention to the surface.* For one, he is skilled and naturally talented in some ways (not that that's unusual in many fantasies), and I think that to some extent that is purposeful to contrast him with so many other fantasy characters who are "naturally gifted".*

I agree that he is a Gary Stu, at least in some aspects. And part of what annoys me is that Rothfuss turns the Gary Stu-ness on and off to oh-so-conveniently fit the plot.

For instance, I am currently back up to where Kvothe has been in Tarbean for three years. Three years, and he's still a starving beggar. Now, this is a kid who learns everything instantly, who can juggle and do acrobatics and make medicines and all sorts of stuff. This is a kid who Ben said could be the richest merchant in the world within a few years, could be the most powerful anything he wanted to be. Yet in three years, we're supposed to believe that Kvothe hasn't done anything with all that talent?? Please, gimme a break. It ain't logical.

 

[KatG]

It is impossible for Kote/Kvothe to be an unreliable narrator in the frame sequences, because he *isn't the narrator at all* in those sequences. The frame is told in 3rd person. So if the reader can believe ANY of the book, it should be those sequences.

Well no, not at all. Kvothe is talking about his life in those frame 3rd person sequences. But we don't know if what he's saying in dialogue is the truth. He is still an unreliable narrator as someone talking in those sequences. And when the viewpoint format switches to his pov first person -- which is Kvothe continuing to talk about his life to the chronicler -- he is very much an unreliable narrator, even as he is saying that he's trying to set the record straight.

Which is why his evident brilliance is uneven and may be to a degree false. He may be embellishing some of his abilities and accomplishments, even as he also seems to be modest and downplaying some of those abilities and accomplishments. We don't actually know that most of what Kvothe says as his true story is actually true. He may not have been quite as good in his entrance exam to the university. He may not have been as accomplished at eleven as he said he was, and so forth. The entire series is about illusion and reflection.

It is in the third person framing sequences, in fact, that we get the really strong hints of this. Kvothe's fairy companion casts doubts in those sequences that some of what Kvothe's telling the chronicler is really accurate. We get hints of secrets on top of more secrets. It is clear the Kvothe does have power and has been through traumatic experiences. But people who go through trauma often have a hard time distinguishing all aspects of reality from aspects of illusion and may act out and lie. And the novel explores these elements with great fascination, in particular as magic always contains the danger of leading to madness. So Kvothe is unreliable throughout because Rothfuss is playing with the subjectivity and unreliability of biography.

For instance, I am currently back up to where Kvothe has been in Tarbean for three years. Three years, and he's still a starving beggar. Now, this is a kid who learns everything instantly, who can juggle and do acrobatics and make medicines and all sorts of stuff. This is a kid who Ben said could be the richest merchant in the world within a few years, could be the most powerful anything he wanted to be. Yet in three years, we're supposed to believe that Kvothe hasn't done anything with all that talent?? Please, gimme a break. It ain't logical.

So you want him to be more unrealistically perfect and brilliantly succeed in a city where the government structure is deliberately geared to keep street beggars from doing any such thing? After he's a kid suffering post-traumatic stress syndrome from the massacre of his people and parents, etc.? Just because someone is very smart does not mean that they are very deft and practical in the face of any adversity. The city sequence shows Kvothe's increasing frustration with being able to get anywhere in the city beyond petty theft as he grows older and acquires experiences without the protection and help of mentors he had earlier. When he sees the opportunity to escape, he does.

Or at least, that's what he tells us. The reality of it may never be clear as nothing about Kvothe's life is really recorded until he comes to the university. The fact that Kvothe does not go to his mentor after his parents' death out of shame and shock for instance -- that's not a logical thing to do either. Does Kvothe really try to make it on his own in the city for those reasons or was there something else that is the truth? Did he really get trained by the guy at all or did he lie? I'm really not sure how much Rothfuss will tell the audience, but I imagine some interesting things will come up in the last book as the details of Kvothe's life get more complicated and entangled with the illusions of the fairie.

 

[Contrarius]

Well no, not at all. Kvothe is talking about his life in those frame 3rd person sequences. But we don't know if what he's saying in dialogue is the truth. He is still an unreliable narrator as someone talking in those sequences. And when the viewpoint format switches to his pov first person -- which is Kvothe continuing to talk about his life to the chronicler -- he is very much an unreliable narrator, even as he is saying that he's trying to set the record straight.

We're talking about two different kinds of unreliability here.

In the frame sequences, if we are told that Kvothe did something like walked out to the woodpile and cried -- we know that actually happened. That is reliable info, because it's 3rd person. If it were told in 1st person, though, it would not be reliable. OTOH, Obviously, when Kvothe SAYS something, there is always the possibility that he's lying. If he *does* something, we can rely that it's true. He actually did those things. If he *says* something, not necessarily.

Which is why his evident brilliance is uneven and may be to a degree false.

We know that he is actually brilliant, because for one thing he picks up Chronicler's shorthand system within a few minutes. That's a reliable piece of info. Naturally, of course, Kvothe may be embellishing on what he says in the first person portions of the book.

So you want him to be more unrealistically perfect and brilliantly succeed in a city where the government structure is deliberately geared to keep street beggars from doing any such thing?

No, what I want is more logical consistency.

After he's a kid suffering post-traumatic stress syndrome from the massacre of his people and parents, etc.?

I would buy this excuse for the first few months, or even a year -- but not for three years.

Just because someone is very smart does not mean that they are very deft and practical in the face of any adversity. The city sequence shows Kvothe's increasing frustration with being able to get anywhere in the city beyond petty theft as he grows older and acquires experiences without the protection and help of mentors he had earlier.

Right. And I don't think that failure and frustration is consistent with his earlier roster of extraordinary abilities.

Or at least, that's what he tells us. The reality of it may never be clear as nothing about Kvothe's life is really recorded until he comes to the university.

That really strikes me as a convenient excuse. If we can simply explain away any inconsistencies with an airy wave of the "unreliable narrator" wand, there really isn't much point in reading the book in the first place.

The fact that Kvothe does not go to his mentor after his parents' death out of shame and shock for instance -- that's not a logical thing to do either.

Actually, I have no problem with that part. He is miles and miles away from Ben, at the beginning he IS out of his head, and by the time he comes to his senses he is much too far away to get to some tiny town with not even a map.

 

[Contrarius]

Okay, I finally finished looking through all of 3rdI's posts on this forum. I may have missed something along the way, but I still didn't find much in the way of specifics about quality in these books.

I did find the following:

Pat's understanding of proper 1st person narration coupled with beautiful prose and masterful storytelling ranks this among the very best stories ever told in fantasy which is high praise given that in the 20+ years I have been reading fantasy I have probably only enjoyed 25% of the books I have read.

Now, what I've been asking for is **specifics**. Can you give any examples of how Pat's 1st person narration is especially "proper"? Can you give any examples of "beautiful prose"? Can you give us specific examples of how the storytelling is "masterful"?

The pacing is precise given the nature of the story.

How is pacing "precise"? What specific events give you that sense of "precise" pacing?

 

[3rdI]

Okay, I finally finished looking through all of 3rdI's posts on this forum. I may have missed something along the way, but I still didn't find much in the way of specifics about quality in these books.

I did find the following:



Now, what I've been asking for is **specifics**. Can you give any examples of how Pat's 1st person narration is especially "proper"? Can you give any examples of "beautiful prose"? Can you give us specific examples of how the storytelling is "masterful"?



How is pacing "precise"? What specific events give you that sense of "precise" pacing?

Wow. You realize it is borderline creepy going through someone's entire post history right?

If you do not find my positions descriptive enough so be it.

To properly answer all your question's I would have to compose a very long post that would take up quite a bit of time. I will leave this up to the membership. I thought this thread had moved in a fairly positive direction. It sounds as if you want me to write a paper on the series. And while I have no problem with that, I am not entirely sure sffworld or the membership wants to read a post that takes up an entire page.

I did send you a pm with enough specifics to make clear my perspective. If that wasn't enough so be it.