Jump to content
Darth Richard II

Rothfuss XIV: The Slow Regard of Luna Lovegood

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How can you say that the movie caused the killings?

its known that a lot of mass shooters were influenced by the movie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mazzack said:

You're right that an individual piece of art or storytelling is unlikely to produce unhealthy or dangerous behaviour in an individual. However, I think it is valid to say that the breadth of media and storytelling that we consume could coalesce into a message or understanding of the world that could influence the individual.

The breadth, yes. No writer or artist is responsible for the breadth. Yet Rothfuss very specifically cites specific authors and creators and assigns specific blame for (hoax) hospitalizations and (unsupportable) deaths.

3 hours ago, Mazzack said:

Such as, The Punisher by itself probably isn't causing harm, but a media landscape, particularly in America, that is made up of advertisements, books, movies, TV, games, etc. reinforces an aesthetic fetishisation of guns and a message that the utilisation of firearms empowers people and re-masculinises men, and that this message could contribute to someone with issues with anger or misogyny or other problems to employing them in a deadly fashion. And whilst The Punisher is not advocating such action and is probably not directly influencing anyone to such an extent, it is, like many other individual examples of art and storytelling, conveying a message to its audience through a combination of text, subtext and context.

But Rothfuss specifically questions the existence of the Punisher show, specifically. "Do we really need this show?" or something like that.

I think your issue is with what Rothfuss said. What you're saying is perfectly sensible, but it's not what Rothfuss was arguing. Which, if his intention was to make a much broader point rather than rattling off specific claims about specific authors and their works, supports what I said at the very start: his argumentation is muddled. I don't think anyone needs to go to bat on his behalf. The content of what he said is right there. He's the one who made the claim The Hobbit and LotR are responsible for tens of thousands of smoking-related deaths.

 

3 hours ago, Mazzack said:

I am not certain how one should approach this as a problem. I love some violent video games and movies, etc., and I think they can often use violence and violent imagery to provide an anti-violent message, and sometimes I simply enjoy the cathartic thrill of well done violent spectacle, despite often finding the message that it conveys troubling. However, I don't think we should ridicule or condemn an author for reflecting upon the message or effect their work might produce, how it fits into a general ideological milieu or framework, or whether it is what they want to convey.

Who is ridiculing or condemning? I'm pointing out that he's a storyteller more than anything -- explicitly calls himself one -- and that it's no surprise that what he says sounds like a story, with a nice clean narrative but it is built on hoaxes, false premises, and oversimplification. That was his choice, not mine.

3 hours ago, Mazzack said:

I would never criticise Tolkien's character for including smoking, nor accuse him personally of causing deaths. It would be ridiculous to do so.

Wait, I thought I was the one ridiculing Rothfuss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ran said:

The breadth, yes. No writer or artist is responsible for the breadth. Yet Rothfuss very specifically cites specific authors and creators and assigns specific blame for (hoax) hospitalizations and (unsupportable) deaths.

But Rothfuss specifically questions the existence of the Punisher show, specifically. "Do we really need this show?" or something like that.

I think your issue is with what Rothfuss said. What you're saying is perfectly sensible, but it's not what Rothfuss was arguing. Which, if his intention was to make a much broader point rather than rattling off specific claims about specific authors and their works, supports what I said at the very start: his argumentation is muddled. I don't think anyone needs to go to bat on his behalf. The content of what he said is right there. He's the one who made the claim The Hobbit and LotR are responsible for tens of thousands of smoking-related deaths.

 

Who is ridiculing or condemning? I'm pointing out that he's a storyteller more than anything -- explicitly calls himself one -- and that it's no surprise that what he says sounds like a story, with a nice clean narrative but it is built on hoaxes, false premises, and oversimplification. That was his choice, not mine.

Wait, I thought I was the one ridiculing Rothfuss?

When talking about politics on his stream, he's said 8000 people will die if the Affordable HealthCare is repealed. Regardless of your political leaning, making those claims pretty much end the conversation. 

 

Rothfuss doesnt have the mental composure of an engineer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

It isn’t. That’s just a lie. 

Im not saying the movie caused school shootings, but it influenced shooters thinking. 

You could say the same thing about Stephen King's novel Rage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, lysmonger said:

Im not saying the movie caused school shootings, but it influenced shooters thinking. 

You could say the same thing about Stephen King's novel Rage

You're attempting to make a causal link.  I'll bet most of those shooters drank Milk too.  Is Milk responsible for their mass shootings?  Correlation does not equal causation and your correlation is really tenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You're attempting to make a causal link.  I'll bet most of those shooters drank Milk too.  Is Milk responsible for their mass shootings?  Correlation does not equal causation and your correlation is really tenuous.

I still can't tell if this is a troll or not. Poe's Law in full effect I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ran said:

No one has turned into a vigilante because of Netflix's Punisher show. And at the same time, the show looked at things like PTSD; indeed, it earned praise for it. But one is kind of tied to the other -- they explored a facet of a character who happens to be a violent vigilante. Have they made the world better or worse for their having chosen the Punisher as their lens through which to focus on some things like PTSD and the difficulty of veterans transitioning to a peaceful life?

The Punisher was a typical alpha dog, power-fantasy that managed to distinguish itself from tripe like The Walking Dead only through some inspired casting, and by containing enough patriotic man-angst to claw its way into the periphery of the zeitgeist.

I agree, the Punisher did not turn anyone into a violent vigilante. But nobody said that it did. Rothfuss said that it can make guns seem appealing to people in the same way that Tolkien made smoking seem like fun to him as a kid, and he considers the former to be irresponsible in our present climate.

Quote

Its social impact, good or bad, is utterly negligible. Again, Rothfuss gives way too much weight to the impact of individual works of art. For the most part, the main thing I can say anecdotally is that I know of a lot of _artists_ who can cite works that inspired them to be artists. Art begets art, mainly. It very rarely has broader social ramifications when looked at discreetly rather than generally (outside of those anecdotal artists).

We know that The Birth of a Nation inspired brutal lynchings. Is it really such a leap to say that a society as inundated with gun-porn as ours, combined with the ready availability of firearms, could inspire massacres?

Quote

But he has no evidence that Tolkien caused any harm at all. It's much easier to quantify the good he has caused. Tolkien has caused marriages to be made, children to be born, friendships to be formed, created a genre that has led to millions of words written by thousands of writers, has been the foundation of an entire film industry in one country, etc.

So your point is what, that Tolkien inspires only good and that anything bad needs to be cited with hard evidence? Either artists are responsible for the effects, both good and bad, of their work, or it's out of their hands once the art is out in the world. But you can't have it both ways.

Quote

I think the general point that artists should be cognizant of what they right is perfectly reasonable. Assigning exaggerated weight to their responsibility in creating art doesn't help the argument.

I didn't get the impression of such gravity with that speech. He seemed to have been pretty flip about it all. He kept interrupting himself to say how much he loves the Hobbit, that Tolkien is the father of the genre, that he thinks about Elvin Poetry when he climaxes, etc.

Edited by Let's Get Kraken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

 

I didn't get the impression of such gravity with that speech. He seemed to have been pretty flip about it all. He kept interrupting himself to say how much he loves the Hobbit, that Tolkien is the father of the genre, that he thinks about Elvin Poetry when he climaxes, etc.

Da fuq . . . ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

The Punisher was a typical alpha dog, power-fantasy that managed to distinguish itself from tripe like The Walking Dead only through some inspired casting, and by containing enough patriotic man-angst to claw its way into the periphery of the zeitgeist.

I agree, the Punisher did not turn anyone into a violent vigilante. But nobody said that it did.

He said Tolkien has killed tens of thousands, he said Disney hospitalized 50 children, so it seems to me he is perfectly willing to believe that he can attribute some direct effect from the Punisher.

Quote

 

Rothfuss said that it can make guns seem appealing to people in the same way that Tolkien made smoking seem like fun to him as a kid, and he considers the former to be irresponsible in our present climate.

He'd have to show that it had such an effect on anyone, and that that actually had some real world effect, for it to matter. It's not irresponsible if it does nothing either way. Just as Tolkien making a three year old think smoking a pipe is fun is harmful, because that kid is not going to grow up smoking a pipe, or at least not because of Tolkien.

What I find especially absurd is that there's a chapter in TWF that romanticizes teenagers abusing alcohol ("The three boys, one dark, one light, and one-for lack of a better word-fiery, do not notice the night. Perhaps some part of them does, but they are young, and drunk, and busy knowing deep in their hearts that they will never grow old or die. They also know that they are friends, and they share a certain love that will never leave them. The boys know many other things, but none of them seem as important as this. Perhaps they are right.") , and yet here he is going on about a writer's social responsibility, alleging absurd real-world impacts from Tolkien having smoking or Disney having frog-kissing; far more people are going to die from alcohol than from kissing frogs or at the hands of mass murderers and serial killers.

Is he a hypocrite? Maybe that's what we should be talking about, because for certain tens of thousands of impressionable young people have read his books, and god knows if one of them kills someone or themselves drinking and driving, we know who to blame... :P

It's simply ill thought out, what he said. Maybe he was just noodling out loud, but his noodling is not persuasive. It has a kernel of truth that is self-evident and he spins it into a mountain of bullshit based on unsupportable assertions.

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Stego said:

I stopped in to see if there was any decent Rothfuss chatter.

What in the flying hell are you folks on about? 

Most of this thread and the last are versions of Rothfuss being an ass in some way or another. 

9 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Too much?

YMMV :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Stego said:

I stopped in to see if there was any decent Rothfuss chatter.

What in the flying hell are you folks on about? 

Essentially this thread has turned into "Rothfuss Watch," where people who claim to hate his writing carefully scan through every word that comes out of his bearded face to let us all know when he says something they consider stupid or offensive.

Edited by Let's Get Kraken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Essentially this thread has turned into "Rothfuss Watch," where people who claim to hate his writing carefully scan through every word that comes out of his bearded face to let us all know when he says something they consider stupid or offensive.

Well, for the last year or so that's been every time he opens his mouth. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Well, for the last year or so that's been every time he opens his mouth. :P

Touche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rothfuss has turned into the Elon Musk of fantasy. Next thing he'll be on some YouTuber channel smoking weed to show how he's all down with the kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×