Jump to content
Darth Richard II

Rothfuss XIV: The Slow Regard of Luna Lovegood

Recommended Posts

12 hours 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.

No quite a few of school shooters were influenced by school shooters. Wiki it. Not saying every depressed susceptible  person who watches the movie or reads a novel will go shoot up a school. 

Perhaps its best to say, if you want to shoot up a place, you are more than likely to read Novel A and watch Movie B.  Stephen King even said he didnt want to be affiliated with this. So put his novel out of print. 

Share this post


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

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.

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.

You know lets start a fake movement against his Novels. Do a few Youtube videos about the heroin overdoses and alcohol abuse in America. Then bring in his books and proclaim he is promoting dangerous levels of drinking and antisocial behavior. We'll then go into how Denna may have taken heroin to be a little bit looser around Kvothe and that this will encourage heroin use amongst teenagers for social anxiety and this will lead to unconsensual sex. 

"Looking at the statistics from 2000-2020, There was a sudden jump of 50 rapes per year on college campuses at 2011 just after the Wiseman's Fear was released."

 

If this prank is done subtle enough, Rothfuss will believe and completely lose his shit. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lysmonger said:

No quite a few of school shooters were influenced by school shooters. Wiki it. Not saying every depressed susceptible  person who watches the movie or reads a novel will go shoot up a school. 

Perhaps its best to say, if you want to shoot up a place, you are more than likely to read Novel A and watch Movie B.  Stephen King even said he didnt want to be affiliated with this. So put his novel out of print. 

How many of those school shooters ate hamburgers?  Is hamburger consumption responsible for school shootings?

You keep pointing to correlations but you never explain how those correlations have  any causal connection to the violence offered.  People see violence every day in person and on various media platorms.  Violence is dramatic and has always been an element in various forms of drama.  

Please explain why the violence portrayed in “Natural Born Killers” caused other violence that occured in real life.  Until you make this connection the correlation you describe is no more relevant than school shooters eating burgers and drinking milk.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say, though I think his comments about Tolkien were more innocent than is being made out, he has used this same argument to very stupid effect in other situations. He has a shtick about how "psychologically abusive" it is to portray children in mortal danger or to kill small children in your fiction, because it turns our evolutionary drive to protect our young against us or some shit. Makes me wanna send him a copy of Prince of Thorns.

Edited by Let's Get Kraken

Share this post


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

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.

Did he ever hold his own work up as some standard of creative ethical purity? He never said that Gandalf's pipe smoking or the Princess and the Frog shouldn't have existed. The closest he came to that was saying that he didn't need something like The Punisher in his life at the moment. The whole point of that tangent about The Hobbit was that even Tolkien can cause unintentional harm. He's not saying Tolkien should go away or not have written that scene any more than reasonable media critics like Anita S. are saying Mario Bros. shouldn't exist by pointing out the harm in some of the tropes they created.

I'm just saying there is really something unhealthy about people going this ape-shit because somebody might have criticized Tolkien unfairly, when unscripted, and speaking in the abstract, about a Netflix show that has nothing to do with Tolkien or the Hobbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How many of those school shooters ate hamburgers?  Is hamburger consumption responsible for school shootings?

You keep pointing to correlations but you never explain how those correlations have  any causal connection to the violence offered.  People see violence every day in person and on various media platorms.  Violence is dramatic and has always been an element in various forms of drama.  

Please explain why the violence portrayed in “Natural Born Killers” caused other violence that occured in real life.  Until you make this connection the correlation you describe is no more relevant than school shooters eating burgers and drinking milk.

Google Natural Born Killers Copycat and you’ll see a bunch of articles. Most famous was the two people that killed John Grisham’s friend. Now life is complicated and multi-faceted and causation is a tricky thing. I quite doubt that NBK was either necessary or sufficient to cause any of the copycat killing sprees, but I find it hard to doubt its in the causal chain of events. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember people blaming The Matrix for Columbine, except they were planning the attack and wearing black trenches way before the movie came out. Coincidence, yes. Cause and effect? Not so much. 

Share this post


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

I remember people blaming The Matrix for Columbine, except they were planning the attack and wearing black trenches way before the movie came out. Coincidence, yes. Cause and effect? Not so much. 

Are you suggesting a causal link here where because “people” incorrectly identified a casual link in one instance, then all other instances of identifying casual links are invalid?

I find your ideas intriguing. I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter. 

:drool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The upside of the conniptions that occur around this topic is some interesting conversation. :P

In all seriousness though, I think the couple of minutes of preamble before he discusses Tolkien is pretty illuminating as to where he's coming from. It is a discussion of art and its effects upon the culture at large, and an argument for writers to be conscious about this and use their greater power to promulgate information and meaning within our culture for good. The sticking point is the word "responsible", which I think he throws around a bit too lightly. But, as was stated earlier, these remarks were off the cuff, so I think a bit of semantic sloppiness is not particularly surprising. I mean, he ends it with the message that we should be critical in how we consume our media, which I feel is the ultimate point he is trying to make, and that's a valuable message full stop. Are we arguing we shouldn't be?

I think re-watching the bit where he is talking about a responsibility to provide examples of girls being good maths or not being weak and that kind of stuff made me re-evaluate the problem with women in his books. There's always the possibility that he is going to reveal Kvothe to be way more of an unreliable narrator than I think will happen, which could somewhat salvage the problem with women, but would also probably do a lot of damage to the structural integrity of the series. But I think the more likely reason is that Rothfuss sees the way to provide good representation of women and interaction with feminist themes is to create characters who, by their biography, the description of who they are, refute such assumptions. We do see women who can fight and we do see women who are good at science-y stuff (I can't remember if maths gets a specific look-in). But he doesn't recognise or write with the recognition that the web of our interactions and the way we interact really serve define us. So, while we see women who are defined by the author describing who they are for us, we also see the same women defined by, for example, being attracted to Kvothe, or by less obvious but similarly problematic tropes, and that contradiction weakens their character and their representation, and thus any kind of feminist credentials.

Edited by Mazzack
Missed a couple of words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, unJon said:

Are you suggesting a causal link here where because “people” incorrectly identified a casual link in one instance, then all other instances of identifying casual links are invalid?

I find your ideas intriguing. I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter. 

:drool:

:lol:

Only that weak sensational links between movies and real events should be avoided without evidence to the contrary. No more, no less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, Mazzack said:

In all seriousness though, I think the couple of minutes of preamble before he discusses Tolkien is pretty illuminating as to where he's coming from. It is a discussion of art and its effects upon the culture at large, and an argument for writers to be conscious about this and use their greater power to promulgate information and meaning within our culture for good. The sticking point is the word "responsible", which I think he throws around a bit too lightly. But, as was stated earlier, these remarks were off the cuff, so I think a bit of semantic sloppiness is not particularly surprising. I mean, he ends it with the message that we should be critical in how we consume our media, which I feel is the ultimate point he is trying to make, and that's a valuable message full stop. Are we arguing we shouldn't be?

Well, there are a few things going on. There is his message in general, his specific examples and his hypocrisy. I get the gist of what he was trying to get across. People, and children in particular, are impressionable and the media they consume may influence their preferences or actions, but this isn't a case of Roald Dahl's crude humour, where he might have had more of a point.

 

Also, I'm amazed at the lengths people will go to to disassociate access to guns for gun violence.  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely agree with you on that last point. I live in Australia and I truly enjoy my freedom to not be particularly afraid of guns and gun crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, unJon said:

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

Oh. Well, he's kind of a douche in real life. So what?

 

Share this post


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

Makes me wanna send him a copy of Prince of Thorns.

That book is hot garbage. Everything from the psychology to the physical strength/maturity is impossible for a what -- 12yr old? 10? Something absurd. 

Sending a Lawrence book in protest to Rothfuss would be like sending a Goodkind book in protest to GRRM. (Except that Goodkind has given me SOME enjoyment.)

Share this post


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

Oh. Well, he's kind of a douche in real life. So what?

 

So in the absence of book news people complain about everything else I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Myrddin said:

:lol:

Only that weak sensational links between movies and real events should be avoided without evidence to the contrary. No more, no less. 

Sure. Of course. 

But copycats do exist. Random example from my hometown and childhood:

At the north end of the number 2 bus line, there was a turnaround behind a shopping mall when the bus drivers would hang out for a bit, grab a cigarette, or whatever. Due to the large amount of gasoline that it took to fire the things up, the bus drivers let them idle and sometimes they were unguarded while the drivers went off to the bathroom. 

A local roving reporter got wind of this, and did a story for the evening news. It was portrayed as a security issue (this was more than 30 years ago, so pre 9/11 hysteria) although the reporter noted that this had been going on as long as anyone could remember and there had never been a problem.

Three days later, someone stole a bus and took it for a joyride.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason I waded in at all was that I was bothered by how badly Rothfuss argues.

He's well-educated, he's clearly intelligent, he writes beautiful prose, he's been very generous with his charitable efforts, and so on. He seems, all in all, like someone who has done more good in the world than bad, and so the people who spend their times raging at him for not finishing his latest book are wrong and should find better things to do with themselves.

Fortunately for him, I do not care about his next book at all! One book was enough (the bit I quoted from WMF was on the internet :P) for me, but even if it weren't, I'm sympathetic to his difficulties, as I would be with any other artist who finds themselves in difficulties. I've no personal animus, and wish him the best.

But given all that, he threw out some hot garbage at PAX and to me it feels like he's not really aware of the fact of why some of what he said should not have been said. I mean, I won't even get into his insisting the Punisher is the character everyone goes to to mock (pretty sure Robin is the #1 character to mock in comics, because of his sidekick status; or if not him, Aquaman) and seeming kind of mystified that people clearly did not agree...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stego said:

That book is hot garbage. Everything from the psychology to the physical strength/maturity is impossible for a what -- 12yr old? 10? Something absurd. 

Sending a Lawrence book in protest to Rothfuss would be like sending a Goodkind book in protest to GRRM. (Except that Goodkind has given me SOME enjoyment.)

...

wow.

if I didn’t know better I’d say you must be new here

Edited by Darth Richard II

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

×