Does Name Of The Wind get better?

[BLU-RAY]

Did HE just hipster-one-up everyone in the thread about being down on Rothfuss before it was cool? If so, that's amazing.

[Tears of Lys]

The Trebon adventure... yeah, it kind of stood out for not really fitting with the rest of the story. A lot of time was spent on the denner resin storyline. The only thing I can figure why it was included is that it allowed Denna to let down her guard and express her true feelings (which Kvothe was too inexperienced/ignorant to understand, but was quite clear to me, at least.)

@Polishgenius: Why do you think it would be added at an editor's behest? For the romance angle? To humanize Denna? Whatever, it didn't really work too well, since people seem to still hate Denna, for whatever reason.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Did HE just hipster-one-up everyone in the thread about being down on Rothfuss before it was cool? If so, that's amazing.

HE is on record as simply not finding Name of the Wind interesting. As such, he predates those of us who mock Wise Man's Fear for its treatment of sex.

[kingofashes]

was it just me, or does it seem strange that Kvothe is pronounced 'QUOATH'? They mentioned the pronunciation about halfway through. I always imagined it as being 'KUH-VOTH', and that sounds a way awesomer name. Just me believing that, though. Being strange and all.

Aren't you right with 'KUH-VOTH'? I'm sure Pat said it sounds like " 'QUOATH', but with a V in it" so you're right to say it like you do, at least I think you are as that's how I say it, too. Well, more like 'KIH-VOTH'* without the pronounced break in the middle. The way you say it prettt cool though!

* I might be saying it different because of my Scottish accent, which might mess it up a bit. Roose"say it like your mouth is full of dirt" Bolton

[dietl]

I say it like 'QUOATH'. 'QU' as in 'quest' and 'OATH' as in 'oath'. I think that's also how Rothuss says it.

[polishgenius]

@Polishgenius: Why do you think it would be added at an editor's behest? For the romance angle? To humanize Denna? Whatever, it didn't really work too well, since people seem to still hate Denna, for whatever reason.

I don't now know where I got it in my head from, but I have the distinct memory of reading somewhere that Rothfuss said so, and that it was to add some action to the finale.

[DaveSumm]

I say it like 'QUOATH'. 'QU' as in 'quest' and 'OATH' as in 'oath'. I think that's also how Rothuss says it.

Based on the line from NotW about its pronounciation, I've been saying it "Kvo-thay". Mainly because I figured if it was simply 'Kvoth' then he could have written "Kvothe, pronounced almost the same as Quoth". Why add the 'e' to quoth as well? But I admit I am probably wrong. Too late now, it's lodged firmly in my head.

Wasn't sure whether this was the right thread to weigh in on the book generally, but anyway........I think it's incredible. It's the best thing I've read since aSoIaF by quite some way. I love how he can give an eloquent description of a single look between two people and achieve more character description than most manage in whole chapters. It's written beautifully, and the magic system with its grounding in so much real science is fantastic. I suppose I could understand if people find it a little uneventful, but personally I could quite happily read three books of his day to day life at the University, I love it.

[thistlepong]

I thought, seeing as how the thread was approaching its end, that HE was symbolically falling on his sword Godwin style when he called me a mid-twentieth century National Socialist. I'd honestly be delighted if I could note that Kvothe's a faithful depiction of a sexist teenager and leave it there. But folks who are into the work tend to require a sort of framework to even think about it.

Despite Castel's perception of what I'm saying, I've never called Rothfuss's work a failure. This:

I'm amused at the idea of thistle pong being a rothfuss hater.

... is a reference to my general stance as a Pat apologist, even booster. Kyriarchy is complex, though.

I'd like to have HE's conviction and focus. I don't, though. I like this stuff. I'm troubled by it.

I don't now know where I got it in my head from, but I have the distinct memory of reading somewhere that Rothfuss said so, and that it was to add some action to the finale.

It seems like I'd remember this given my preoccupations. Without some kind of verification, It has to remain in the realm of hearsay. In a way, it'd be great to have it confirmed 'cause then I could be right about some of the structural oddities without having to worry about its merit.

[thistlepong]

The pronunciation thing is like sand in my gums. It's explained before the narrative starts, but it looks like that can still be confusing. The audiobook is a great resource, but here's the man himself:

[Tears of Lys]

To follow up on my post about why the Trebon adventure may have been included, I also was quite curious about the countryside thereabouts. (Others have posted great theories on which of the ancient cities were located in that region.)

I've combed through that section, looking for clues, but so far have found just a few scraps here and there.

[Sci-2]

... is a reference to my general stance as a Pat apologist, even booster. Kyriarchy is complex, though

To be clear, you are at the least a successful apologist, in that you've changed my views more toward the positive. Though I'd say I think Pat's ability as a storyteller of scenes was never in doubt. The man does have a knack for making even seemingly boring things flow in his prose, and that's a gift.

As to HE's comment, I can't tell if he was merely joining the bandwagon of posts about Unprevailing's review, where everyone was in agreement, or was genuinely suggesting you are a National Socialist.

If the latter, yes, that's a bit ridiculous, so I'll go with a strongly worded version of the former - failure in one criteria within a text should not be used to damn an author and more importantly should not then be an excuse to superficially engage the rest of the text.

What I think is a more interesting track is how we can examine an author's words outside of his text to at least guess at the intent within it. This is where I'm not sure about HE's stance - does he think this is a valid direction for criticism to go in? I'd say yes, with some reservation that such examination not be used as a litmus test to see whether said author is "good" or "evil"...which again, neither you (thistlepong) or anyone else here is doing.

[thistlepong]

(...ugh, I haven't lost a post in months... I assure y'all this was incisive, magnanimous, and spectacularly brilliant in its original form...)

Oh, goodness. I was merely playfully prodding the hyperbole in kind rather than adopting an authentic umbrageous pose. The point, broadly, is valid. The notion that a blogger whispering into the void approaches equivalence with sophisticated national propaganda machinery is, um, not.

I'm starting to worry that discussing two (or more) things is giving the impression that I link them conceptually as a matter of course.. This is not the case. I also worry that this misconception is raising the emotional tenor of all... the... things. Nonetheless, I ain't stoppin'.

Put real simple, The Kingkiller Chronicle has a chauvinist perspective. That's one thing. There are lots of reasons to just say "duh" about it. So lets says "duh" and move on.

In some cases there's an almost explicitly anti-feminist bent. There is, in fact, a pattern: cf. Deoch and Kvothe (as presented in Unprevailing), Losine, Felurian, Meluan, even the ratio of men:women... There's no need to be emotional about it. It's there. We don't have to judge. In fact, it's so plain that using HE's terminology and calling it a loyal depiction is probably right on.

And the author is dead. Or irrelevant. Up to that point.

When you start wondering about intent you get mixed messages. Pat's supposed to have some feminist bona fides. Pat calls himself a feminist. Pat presents an unmistakably chauvinist face to the world. What's a reader to do? And so there's argument.

Note though that we don't need to say the books implicate him or that he implicates the books. The exist independently and their contours are distinct from one another. A discerning intellect can easily keep them separate, but should also be able to understand why folks mix 'em up.

[williamjm]

I don't now know where I got it in my head from, but I have the distinct memory of reading somewhere that Rothfuss said so, and that it was to add some action to the finale.

I do remember reading that as well. Of course, I can't remember where I read it now, I guess it's probably in one of his early interviews given around the time tNOTW was released.

[AverageGuy]

I do remember reading that as well. Of course, I can't remember where I read it now, I guess it's probably in one of his early interviews given around the time tNOTW was released.

The book was not initially written to be split up. It was a big, long, rambling thing. The framework narrative came later. So did the dragon. The editor asked to include it to provide a climax in the first book. Comes from early Rothfuss interviews.

[Poobah]

I too can testify that this is definitely something I've heard somewhere. /useful

[Darth Richard]

Assuming he's telling the truth. I'm still sore about being told the whole thing was already done.