SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Maggie wrote: "Too funny Dawn! But then if we all liked the same thing it would be a really boring discussion :)"

Too true, I much prefer a world where a civilized and intelligent debate is possible :)

I'm not going to send you hate mail (postage is atrocious), but I do have some remarks.

Kevin wrote: "One example is why out of nowhere his story gets to be told. His past is nothing special meaning not know across the land it seems, even if it was cool."

"This article has been deleted due to non-notability"? :P

It's been a year and a half since I read this book, so my memory is hazy, but I believe he has some kind of powerful magical enemy that killed his parents. From there, he's obsessed with that enemy for the rest of his life, and that obsession makes him a target as well. I agree that Rothfuss isn't very clear on who this enemy is, but the hints he drops indicate it's some kind of evil, influential force that can definitely be a threat on a larger scale. Nevertheless, I don't agree Kvothe's story requires some sort of epic scale to be told (very few stories would get told, if that's the case). It's getting told because he is involved with this enemy and presumably, since he is still alive, hasn't been killed by them yet.

Plus, the series is called "The Kingkiller Chronicle," so I'm assuming that at some point Kvothe kills a king. That's pretty notable.

Kevin wrote: "… if he is all that cool, then why is he a loner, never really having friend, having a really tough life."

I can certainly understand not enjoying the "loner hero" archetype. It is rather tiresome these days. Kvothe does have friends of a sort, like Denna. But he is defined by his actions and his desire to do what's right, which means he often makes more enemies than friends. And to some extent, I think ever since childhood and his transition from the Ruh to the University, Kvothe has fostered this loneliness deliberately. He finds it difficult to get attached to other people, both because he is so obsessed with his mission, and because he prefers his solitude. Some people choose to distance themselves.

Kevin wrote: "How can we trust and back up his story if he is the only way that knows it fully. That seems shady to me about his personality and character as a person."

That's called having an unreliable narrator. It's a fairly common convention that happens any time you have a sole first-person narrator; one cannot trust that what the person says happened is what actually happened. So this disqualifies quite a few books from ever being "good," I guess.

You are right to be suspicious, of course. There is a reason that Rothfuss chose to use this perspective and to employ a frame story rather than present the story as a linear first-person narrative or even in the third person. I think it makes the story a little more interesting, since it gives us the option of having an alternative take on the events. I love thinking, "OK, what becomes of this story if I assume the narrator has been lying to me?" Maybe Kvothe is lying, or even omitting certain parts. Maybe he is crazy. I can deal with uncertainty.

Kevin wrote: "Lastly, many has hated me for this, this book is getting too much hype that it is turning into Twilight or Harry Potter for people that read fantasy on a regular bases. To me this book is not worth the hype, too cliche for me."

I don't think a book can control its reception among the public, and I try not to let that reception influence my opinions of it. Indeed, the quality of a book is usually not why a book becomes so popular. I read the Twilight series, and it isn't very good. But it resonates with a lot of readers despite the poor writing, and so it sells, and so it's hyped. Its status is not a reflection of our indication of its quality but an indication of our own zeitgeist.

Anyway, not liking The Name of the Wind is perfectly valid and totally cool. Kvothe isn't the type of character who will appeal to everyone (see: loner). I do think it's a little silly to reject a book because it's written in first person, but hey, there are a lot of third person books out there, so it's not like you'll run out of reading materials.

Dawn wrote: Too true, I much prefer a world where a civilized and intelligent debate is possib..."

Ooooh....what series is that from??? ;)

Maggie wrote: "Dawn wrote: Too true, I much prefer a world where a civilized and intelligent debate is possib..."

Ooooh....what series is that from??? ;)"

Best comment of the week!

And if you find out the series, how do I move there?

Ben wrote: "Kevin wrote: "How can we trust and back up his story if he is the only way that knows it fully. That seems shady to me about his personality and character as a person."

That's called having an unreliable narrator. It's a fairly common convention that happens any time you have a sole first-person narrator; one cannot trust that what the person says happened is what actually happened. So this disqualifies quite a few books from ever being "good," I guess."

Its all up to personal taste, but I personally really enjoy the first person unreliable narrator. Thinking back, a significant portion of my favorite books use this method.

Actually, my memory may be sketchy here, but don't the Dresden books also use the first person narrative?

Random wrote: "Actually, my memory may be sketchy here, but don't the Dresden books also use the first person narrative?"

Correct. And when Butcher has written stories from the perspectives of other characters, it's been very interesting to see their take on how Harry acts and speaks. :D

One of my favorite C. S. Lewis books has an unreliable narrator, Til We Have Faces. That's what turned it from a "good" book into a "great" book, at least for me. My mind, she was blown.

Peggy, I agree. It was especially poignant as she thought she was right and justified. (of course, don't we all?)

Exactly. I think that's why it was such a mind-blower for me, because I had really been identifying with the character up until that point. Then I was all, "Wait a minute...what if I'm wrong too...."

Y'know, looking at the list of books mentioned in this topic is pretty interesting...

Thought I'd add another one: Air. It's not completely bad, though. But there is a subplot that just ruins the entire story for me.

And the subplot is just so... well... it causes emotional and physical pain.

Also: talking dog.

The only book I can think of in recent memory I really, really had trouble getting through was Odd Thomas. The main character was just so silly and unbelievable. Not unreliable mind you, just an alien and not at all a young boy. It's been a while since I read it so I can't comment on specifics of the story but I believe I remember not liking that as well. All the 5 star reviews on amazon are just a travesty in my opinion.

@Tom--Perhaps you've gotten your books confused. Odd Thomas deals with an adult man who is a short order cook and has contact with the dead. He's not an alien and the author doesn't portray him as a young boy at all.

It occurs to me that you really meanOdd John: A Story between Jest & Earnestby Olaf Stapledon.

Sherri wrote: "...I am one of those who was deeply devoted to Heinlein in my youth but knows to never go back there again (except for the juvenalia in limited amounts). However, I cannot find it in my heart to forgive him for Podkayne of Mars, which managed to be severely misogynistic, pointless, boring (for such a short book, VERY dull), preachy, and wall worthy in less than 200 pages. I think I kept my copy just so I could torture it...."

Funny, I felt that way about a lot of his later books & wouldn't have put this one on the top of the list. I felt it was middlin' for him, more like Friday. The Number of the Beast was the first one I recall that made me want to yak or maybe it was I Will Fear No Evil.

I Will Fear No Evil is/was so messed up but ... I don't know, I got a crackfic-ish kind of enjoyment out of it at the time even though the back of my mind was pointing out all the things that are kind of wrong about it. Occasionally I'm tempted to re-read it but then I realize it would just make me want to howl.

Number of the Beast was the one that gave me an "Ew, this is fanservice-y yuck" feeling and kind of turned me off Heinlein. Couldn't even finish it.

Sherri wrote: "Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters was the biggest waste of some pretty interesting ideas I was ever unfortunate enough to buy full price retail."

I have exactly the same feelings about Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Interesting concept, terrible execution.

The worst book I actually finished was probably Jumper. Worst example of a whiny, self-absorbed teen narrator I've ever seen.

It's not sci-fi or fantasy but Lady Chatterley's Lover is one of the worst books I've ever tried to read. Was for another book club on here. The whole club hated it.

Interesting. I remember reading that IWFNE suffered a bit because Heinlein was in the hospital and his wife and agent felt that it would be best to get the MS in the publication pipeline rather than waiting. (I think I had a 25th anniversary edition or something, and this was in the intro? Not sure.)

Sherri, my experience with Heinlein started a little earlier. I was about 10 & it was the late 60's. Also, I'm a guy who doesn't really understand women at all, even though I was raised by a single mother, have a 21 year old daughter, & have been married for most of 30 years. Admittedly, I'm dense. That said, I pretty much agree with everything you said in #165.

I think I'm dense much the way Heinlein was, though. Others have said he only has a few characters & the ladies are just the same as the males sans balls. (From what I've read about Virginia Heinlein...) I believe he thought he was treating women equally. I always have this in mind when I'm reading his stuff.

As Nikki pointed out, Heinlein had a medical crisis about the time he was getting IWFNE out. (I thought it was "Number of the Beast", but I could be wrong or it could have been both.) He didn't think he'd live & wanted to finally write what he'd wanted to all along, but hadn't been allowed to.

Have you ever read Variable Star? I couldn't make it through it. Apparently it was his first novel & no one would publish it way back then in the 30's or so. It reminded me of the very worst of his works post 1970. It's something to keep in mind when reading any of his stories or novels - that weirdness he displayed after 1970 wasn't an aberration, it was the real Heinlein poking through.

Anyway, while I'll agree that Heinlein wrote some of the worst books & others haven't aged well (Stranger in a Strange Land). I still get a kick out of others like The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress & many of his short stories & juveniles were not only wonderful, but formative for me. I grew up wanting to emulate the way the heroes thought things through, the work ethic & more. I think Mom, Marg & Erin all made sure I didn't pick up too much bad stuff about women.
;-)

I re-read all of Heinlein's juvies a couple of years ago and enjoyed them all. I read most of them 1st as they were published. Podkayne is one of my favorites. It is not really misogynistic, but just true to its time, like Shakespeare, Dickens, Eyre...

Stranger in a Strange Land remains one of my all time favorite books. I could not get into the Lazarus Long novels, though I tried several times.