Jump to content
Kyll.Ing.

Rothfuss XV: Move along, nothing to see here

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

I stopped reading your post as soon as you said wokekeepers.

I was curious about “wokekeepers” too.

Share this post


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

I was curious about “wokekeepers” too.

"Woke" denotes privilege, to possess the time, inclination, wealth or supportive resources, intellect and/or connections, to not be "asleep." It implies elitism, exclusivity; a vaguely dubious measurement of implied and attained virtue (but "measure is unceasing"), alongside an explicit othering of those "unwoke." In the very least, one who is woke has the privilege to spend time on the internet, describing these tenuous lines.

The keepers of the Woke dwell at the usual loci of online social congress, continually redefining and redistributing the wages of virtue to those worthy and those to be scorned. 

What's of much more interest, though, was the fact that wokekeepers like Lindsey Ellis are frightened to deliver exposes of the Kingkiller, in that doing so might damage their cachet among the stern hordes of the Rothmusk fandom. Censorship and self-doubt ever nips at the heels of the over-woke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Haha, that's not what woke means at all.

Good lord. Do you also call people SJWs when you're angry?

Edited by Darth Richard II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Haha, that's not what woke means at all.

Good lord. Do you also call people SJWs when you're angry?

chill out, I'm just having fun, if the tone itself wasn't obvious. I like to make fun of the extremes on both sides, dwellers as they are in tightly-controlled fantasy zones of RightThink, continually supported by clickbaiters triggering the ire for monetization... or worse, gamed by sociopaths donning sheep's wool and subsequently discrediting progressivism by stoking ideological culture conflict to their own ends, be it for lulz or to establish corrosive ingroup bullying networks, as YA twitter is currently experiencing.

In all seriousness, though, the last point stands. Rothfuss is being tip-toed around because he's friends with some Big Names and there's still the uncertainty as to whether book 3 will address the underlying issues. Naturally, book 3 won't be coming out anytime soon, because in all likelihood Kingkiller was a wish-fulfillment project cobbled together by DAW editors (according to gossip from this forum, by those apparently "in the know") and one of the central tensions is the wish-fulfillment quality that attracts the core fan-base, vs. the rather disturbing slippage ("women are instruments," etc.) on the surface celebrated as "good prose" and, all in all, revelatory as to the underpinning geek immaturity that seeps across the genre's history.

Edited by kuenjato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I wouldn’t put much stock into the put together by editors bullshit that was spouted here, but I digress.

Political fighting aside for a moment, who are these Big Names he is supposedly friends with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and sorry for the double post here, on the phone, but B&N has had a bunch of “Start a new series” displays recently, and one of them was NotW, and I’m pretty sure the lady at the bookstore thought I was crazy I laughed so hard at that one.

Share this post


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

Oh and sorry for the double post here, on the phone, but B&N has had a bunch of “Start a new series” displays recently, and one of them was NotW, and I’m pretty sure the lady at the bookstore thought I was crazy I laughed so hard at that one.

I suppose that's one of the issues that triggers me -- this is seen (and constantly iterated across the infosphere) as a hallmark of the genre, the best of the decade, etc. Even with my issues with some of the other Big Names continually bandied about 'round these parts and others, I would prefer they received more attention/kudos, if nothing else than that Lynch, Sanderson, Erikson et al. don't contain (as much) problematic material and/or, for some, seem to be striving higher and pushing harder to move the genre forward to more interesting areas. To say nothing of the unfortunate trend of procrastination enabled through fame, and the tension fame then situates upon the unfinished work.

Of course, this is also the genre where Goodkind and Brooks remain Big Names, so...... 

Edited by kuenjato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, sologdin said:

Semicolons are for wankers. Seriously. You can go your whole life without ever needing to really use a semicolon.

If you're a software developer, you can't go on your whole life without ever needing to really use a semicolon.

Still, that can be used to back up his claim semicolons are for wankers up to a point. ;) 

EDIT:

To avoid confusion, the quoted part was not something sologdin said. It's part of something he quoted.

Edited by baxus
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, kuenjato said:

 some -- Lindsey Ellis was mentioned -- tiptoe around the subject because of the spammy assholishness of Rothfuss's hardcore fans regarding any criticism.

Not up on this thread, but I'm pretty sure Lindsay Ellis did a whole video essay about self-entitled fans who think creators owe them an explanation as to the way their values are presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Zorral said:

However, the Rothfusses of the world are not scholars nor are they researchers with true knowledge of anything.  The proof of that is all over his book.  His writing that is music oriented, for just one example, proves he knows nothing at all about how to read to music, how to play music, how to perform music or even how to listen to music, which latter, puleeze, a baby can do.  Even parrots know how to listen to music, find the rhythm and dance.

Writers aren't supposed to know things. Writing is a giant con-game, where the writer pretends to know what they're talking about, while being unrealistic as all hell in the name of story.

(Seriously. Aesop and Aristotle deal with this).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To say writers aren't supposed to know things is foolish.  Writers have to know a very great deal, especially if they want their fictional universe to attract readers from the first page to the last -- unless they are so young, like an average adolescent boyo, or those like Rothfuss who never grow out of that.  Which is why these adolescents enthusiastically grab on to much -- like Ayn Rand -- that are just foolish.

And in many ways Aristotle etc. was wrong.  For another their screeds on these matters include that 'poets' create social unrest and instability because they show paths that disrupt the ruling status quo.  Are we fascist yet?  Fascists have always lugged out Aristotle and Plato....

Making up how music is written, played, performed makes a fool of oneself.  For one thing too many people know better.  Fudging some chronology in a novel's narrative is something else, particularly when it is serving a fictional coherence.

 

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Whelp, that'll about do it for me. Lasted 7 hours this time, see y'all in another month or so.

Edited by nah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the books and thought they were good enough to finish. I'm not a fan of Harry Potter so obviously that part threw me off. I'm also not a fan of all the deena shit, I just dont care anymore. That said the world is interesting to me, the magic is interesting, and the chandarian is interesting. I also enjoyed their adventuring looking for the bandits much more than pretty much anything else in either book. I can live with or without an end but if he finally writes it I'll read it and hope the juice was worth the squeeze. I have a feeling it probably wont be but that's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Zorral said:

To say writers aren't supposed to know things is foolish.  Writers have to know a very great deal, especially if they want their fictional universe to attract readers from the first page to the last -- unless they are so young, like an average adolescent boyo, or those like Rothfuss who never grow out of that.  Which is why these adolescents enthusiastically grab on to much -- like Ayn Rand -- that are just foolish.

And in many ways Aristotle etc. was wrong.  For another their screeds on these matters include that 'poets' create social unrest and instability because they show paths that disrupt the ruling status quo.  Are we fascist yet?  Fascists have always lugged out Aristotle and Plato....

Making up how music is written, played, performed makes a fool of oneself.  For one thing too many people know better.  Fudging some chronology in a novel's narrative is something else, particularly when it is serving a fictional coherence.

 

There's a fine line between implementing too much research in one's novel, and too little. Rothmusk flopsweats all over this line, rendering his novels both painfully inauthentic in certain details and in other places laughably long-winded.

Rothmusk had this lame "If you've never experienced this [blank] before, you probably don't know what I'm talking about" intro scattered across the first novel whenever he was going to drop some knowledge, like how horses tire out if you ride them too fast, but thankfully he stopped doing it in the second novel. Of course, that lame line was simply replaced 10x with other lame stuff, sooo....

Edited by kuenjato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do we have here the beginning of an olfactory school of literary criticism, wherein the virtue of the author is to be deduced from the quality of the writer's bouquet? or does the aroma aforesaid skip neatly into the text itself, neither purely formalistic nor needlessly biographical? is there a direct or inverse relation between the corporeally malodorous and the ideologically malignant?

and if this works, i wonder what the future might hold for physiognomy and phrenology in literary theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

doubtful.  i adore plato's dialogues on aesthetic grounds--they read like plays, and socrates is a great literary character. both plato and aristotle are however nasty aristocrats, and summoning these ghosts affirmatively for political or philosophical purposes now is irredeemably arriere-garde (such as how ayn rand with much misunderstanding attempts to use aristotle).

the jest in zorr's post, i think, is that this sentiment--

Quote

Writers have to know a very great deal, especially if they want their fictional universe to attract readers from the first page to the last

--is precisely the idea that socrates crushes in plato's ion.

Edited by sologdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, sologdin said:

doubtful.  i adore plato's dialogues on aesthetic grounds--they read like plays, and socrates is a great literary character. both plato and aristotle are however nasty aristocrats, and summoning these ghosts affirmatively for political or philosophical purposes now is irredeemably arriere-garde (such as how ayn rand with much misunderstanding attempts to use aristotle).

the jest in zorr's post, i think, is that this sentiment--

--is precisely the idea that socrates crushes in plato's ion.

Oh man, I've missed you solo. Seriously, the only reason I clicked on this thread was because I saw your cute little hammer and sickle spinning around. Would it be okay if I wrote you an inappropriate PM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

Oh man, I've missed you solo. Seriously, the only reason I clicked on this thread was because I saw your cute little hammer and sickle spinning around. Would it be okay if I wrote you an inappropriate PM?

Ditto.

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

×