Rothfuss XVI: Books? What books?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Proudfeet said:

Chandrian = Doesn't show up enough. I can give you Cinder. What about Lanre or what his name was after he turned.

Chteah = Doesn't show up enough.

Hemme = Forgot about him. Sure.

Brandeur = Doesn't show up enough. Just being a toady doesn't make him an asshole. Coward maybe.

Meluan = Has bias typical of everyone in the country. Multiplied by losing her sister to a Ruh. This is exactly what I mean with the protagonist deserves better. Also, I'm pretty sure the exchange went both ways. So at worst she's even with Kvothe.

Carcaret = I genuinely don't remember. Was she just stuck in the mud about Adem culture or actually malicious? I can't recall.

Denna = Manipulative, yes. Worse? Probably. Not quite in the same vein though.

Bredon = Same with Denna.

 

Helping Tarpis feed kids = Nice.

Defeating bandits = He was tasked to do so.

Fake Ruh = Was getting vengeance or saving the girls the priority again? 

Anyway, I'm not the one dismissing his good deeds as nothing. Quote me. You defenders are the one dismissing his bad actions as nothing. Because he does x good deed, everything else doesn't count. You're doing it again by the way. And I gave one example amongst others. That's drilling down? And I'm not calling him a villain yet. That's Scot. I'm calling him an asshole, jackass, dick, etc. 

Also, just because you mean well, doesn't mean you behave well. They don't come in a set. Good grief.

And I’m not calling him a “villian”.  I’m saying he is what others would call an “antagonist”.  I’m recognizing we’re hearing the entire story of Kvothe’s life... from Kvothe.  We’re always the “heroes” of our own stories.  I’m saying I suspect to the rest of the world Kvothe isn’t seen as someone who is admirable.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

23 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

Byronic hero, perhaps?

That’s been done though.  I think, and I could be wrong, Rothfuss is trying to give us something new.  The “antagonist” telling their story as a “hero’s journey”.  Perspective of the story teller has been important in many of the substories we’ve gotten in the two books we have.  Heck, it’s essential for The Slow Regard of Slient Things.  As such I think that’s where Rothfuss is taking us, to the end of the path where we learn the guy we’ve been chearing for is responsible for untold horror and destruction.  That others will have to clean up later.

That Kvothe feels justified in his actions does not, necessarily, absolve him of responsibility for the consequences of his actions.  Heck, he’s actually said all the death and destruction people whisper about in his Inn are really his fault.  I think he’s being as honest as he can be.  And remember all the discussions we hear are between people with more information than we as the reader have.  That makes it easier for the author to paint Kvothe as a “not bad” guy with “impulse control problems”.  I really think he will be shown (if we ever get the last book) to have done some incredibly horrible things that have deep and serious consequences.

I also think that revelation may be why we don’t have a third book.  That kind of twist isn’t familiar to readers.  I think Rothfuss is frightened to pull the trigger on the last act of this deconstruction of the “hero’s journey” where the journey leads to very poor ends.

[Ser Not Appearing]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I suspect to the rest of the world Kvothe isn’t seen as someone who is admirable.

That would certainly align with being called a KingKiller and being in hiding.

It's been too long since I read the series - is Kvothe specifically mentioned in frame beyond the time that someone recognizes him? How do people react?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Ser Not Appearing said:

That would certainly align with being called a KingKiller and being in hiding.

It's been too long since I read the series - is Kvothe specifically mentioned in frame beyond the time that someone recognizes him? How do people react?

At the start of The Name of the Wind someone recognizes Kvothe mentions he saw him perform and that the “stones where it happened still cannot be fixed”.  It’s very neutral and the person who recognized Kvothe was drunk.

Not sure how we should read that.

[Vaughn]

4 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Anyway, I'm not the one dismissing his good deeds as nothing. Quote me. You defenders are the one dismissing his bad actions as nothing. Because he does x good deed, everything else doesn't count. You're doing it again by the way. And I gave one example amongst others. That's drilling down? And I'm not calling him a villain yet. That's Scot. I'm calling him an asshole, jackass, dick, etc. 

Also, just because you mean well, doesn't mean you behave well. They don't come in a set. Good grief.

What?

Quote

Out of all the other characters, how many would you rank worse than Kvothe? Just Bast, Ambrose and the actual thieves and murderers who are more villain of the day than characters?

You floated that the only characters worse than him were maybe Ambrose and Bast. My post is in response to that specific hot take, not to specifically defending him as some excellent dude. Personally, I rank many people as worse (see above.) He seems to be average morally/ethically, neither good as Fela, Wilem, etc... nor as bad as various thugs, footpads, murderers, etc... More in the Devi range.

[Larry of the Lawn]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That’s been done though.  I think, and I could be wrong, Rothfuss is trying to give us something new.  The “antagonist” telling their story as a “hero’s journey”.  

This is not remotely anything new.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This is not remotely anything new.

Okay. 

I haven’t read that.  At least not in recent popular Fantasy literature that I’m aware of.  

What other popular fantasy works have we had the “bad guy’s” story told as a “hero’s journey” where we were not aware the story we were reading was of the “bad guy’s” journey?

[Gaston de Foix]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

At the start of The Name of the Wind someone recognizes Kvothe mentions he saw him perform and that the “stones where it happened still cannot be fixed”.  It’s very neutral and the person who recognized Kvothe was drunk.

Not sure how we should read that.

I read that as Kvothe changing the names of those stones in an epic magic duel.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I read that as Kvothe changing the names of those stones in an epic magic duel.  

Maybe.  I’d like the third book so we can find out.

[Larry of the Lawn]

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Okay. 

I haven’t read that.  At least not in recent popular Fantasy literature that I’m aware of.  

What other popular fantasy works have we had the “bad guy’s” story told as a “hero’s journey” where we were not aware the story we were reading was of the “bad guy’s” journey?

 

Use of Weapons springs to mind.  If you want to now narrow the field to fantasy I suppose this maybe makes it more difficult as I don't read much modern fantasy, but I think Abercrombie and Bakker would qualify as well.  Maybe Acts of Caine for what he does in Caine Black Knife.  But if we can not have arbitrary genre boundaries, I mean shit, Hamlet, Paradise Lost, Love in the Time of Cholera, probably tons of others.     We could probably go all the way back to Oedipus Rex

By clicking on this box you may be spoiling some literature written going back to the Greeks and up to contemporary stuff.

[Kalbear]

The best novel that comes to mind is Lolita. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

  Hide contents

Use of Weapons springs to mind.  If you want to now narrow the field to fantasy I suppose this maybe makes it more difficult as I don't read much modern fantasy, but I think Abercrombie and Bakker would qualify as well.  Maybe Acts of Caine for what he does in Caine Black Knife.  But if we can not have arbitrary genre boundaries, I mean shit, Hamlet, Paradise Lost, Love in the Time of Cholera, probably tons of others.     We could probably go all the way back to Oedipus Rex

By clicking on this box you may be spoiling some literature written going back to the Greeks and up to contemporary stuff.

Hamlet is the villian, Oedipus is the villian?  I haven’t read Caine Black Knife or Love in the Time of Cholera.  Satan is the openly the villian from the start of Paradise Lost so I don’t think it qualifies

[Larry of the Lawn]

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 

  Hide contents

Hamlet is the villian, Oedipus is the villian?  I haven’t read Caine Black Knife or Love in the Time of Cholera.  Satan is the openly the villian from the start of Paradise Lost so I don’t think it qualifies

 

 

ok, let's scrap Paradise Lost, but because Satan is the inverse of this.  Use of Weapons is 100% what you're describing though, and should be sufficient to say that what Rothfuss is doing is nothing new, if that is what he's doing.  Hamlet is certainly the villain, he gets his entire family killed, drives his girlfriend to insanity and suicide, all to feel less emo about his father's death.  So is Oedipus, he kills the king (his father) in a fit of rage, yeah he 'saves' the kingdom from the Sphynx but his departure from power after he realizes he murdered his father and fucked his mom leaves a path of tragedy for his kids, leaves the kingdom to fucking Creon. 

I'm sure some better-read folks than me can point to better examples, although I stand by the Banks one as total refutation that this is anything new.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

  Hide contents

ok, let's scrap Paradise Lost, but because Satan is the inverse of this.  Use of Weapons is 100% what you're describing though, and should be sufficient to say that what Rothfuss is doing is nothing new, if that is what he's doing.  Hamlet is certainly the villain, he gets his entire family killed, drives his girlfriend to insanity and suicide, all to feel less emo about his father's death.  So is Oedipus, he kills the king (his father) in a fit of rage, yeah he 'saves' the kingdom from the Sphynx but his departure from power after he realizes he murdered his father and fucked his mom leaves a path of tragedy for his kids, leaves the kingdom to fucking Creon. 

I'm sure some better-read folks than me can point to better examples, although I stand by the Banks one as total refutation that this is anything new.  

Okay, I think we are quibbling over whether what I think Rothfuss is attempting is “new”.  For sake of discussion I concede the point.  Not “new”.

Regardless of whether it is “new” or not I think that’s what he is attempting.  

I also think, even if not “new”, it is uncommon in modern fantasy English literature for the person set up for the reader as the presumed protagonist to end up at the end of the story to not be the protagonist at all, in fact to have been (to the surprise of the reader) the antagonist for a larger story.  I also think that is, again, why Rothfuss is nervous about releasing the last volumn.  I think he’s afraid this twist will piss off many of his “fans”.  

Until we have Day 3, this is all speculation in any event.

[Rhom]

Bakker essentially pulled it with The Second Apocalypse.  

He also tried to finish the story with something he thought was new and edgy... and it was decidedly... not.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, Rhom said:

Bakker essentially pulled it with The Second Apocalypse.  

He also tried to finish the story with something he thought was new and edgy... and it was decidedly... not.

Who thought Kellus or his progeny were the “good guys”?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

@Ser Scot A Ellison - “new” is in the eye of the beholder. I know a fairly famous novelist (very well-regarded writer for TV) who insists that GRRM has “re-defined epic fantasy”.

(IMO)

 

[Rhom]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Who thought Kellus or his progeny were the “good guys”?

They are essentially the POV characters and in the first trilogy at the very least, Kellhus absolutely does seem like the "good guy" in that everything about the Fanim is presented as the "other."  Even in the second series, while we have lost Kellhus as a POV; he is still largely presented as the savior or messiah character from the view of nearly everyone but Sorweel.  And even he has doubts.

[Rhom]

The whole discussion here seems odd to me in the context of what modern fantasy has become.

I thought we were all supposed to be celebrating the loss of the "noblebright" days of heroes in white hats and celebrating the Gloktas, Caines, Jorg Ancraths, and Kvothes of the world.   

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What other popular fantasy works have we had the “bad guy’s” story told as a “hero’s journey” where we were not aware the story we were reading was of the “bad guy’s” journey?

I don't think the Kellhus analogy quite works: Kellhus is clearly dodgy AF to start with, but he's presented as being "better than the alternative," which is more or less true. Cnaiur it might be more true of.

Spoiler

Excepting the last 5 seconds of the last book, and even that's hugely debatable.

Malazan does have it: Felisin is a major protagonist in Book 2 and apparently a "hero" (ish) albeit a hugely damaged one, and is then in a more antagonistic role in Book 4.

Abercrombie might apply: 

Spoiler

Logan is a hero who has an evil alter-ego whom he can't control, like the Hulk! Nope, he's just full of shit and the Bloody Nine is a symptom of his madness and rage which is still part of him, so by the end of the trilogy he's presented in a much less flattering light. Of course, Red Country then revisits that a little.

Glokta is presented as a hero in the first trilogy but ends the series in a more villainous mode, and that continues through the stand-alones and into the sequel trilogy, which he's definitely more of a bad guy. Both these cases are difficult to judge fully, though, as they're small fry compared to Bayaz. Ah, Bayaz might count: introduced as the wise, Gandalf-style mentor character and then you find out he's more like the Emperor from Star Wars at the end of the trilogy (well, maybe not quite, but closer to that then Gandalf, anyway).

The Star Wars prequel trilogy, if you're coming to it completely fresh, is probably the best example (but it then gets undone in the second/original trilogy, so meh).

The reverse is more often true: Jorg in the Broken Empire trilogy is presented as an antagonist that we just happen to be sitting in on the POV of, and then metamorphoses into a (somewhat) more positive role as the story continues. Very relative though.