Actually, in my reading experience, that's where the series took a serious nosedive. The last book I enjoyed was #7. Something happened between that one and the next one, because #8 dragged like a five-ton weight, and #9 was more of the same. I never finished it. He had so many POV characters and storylines that it took the whole book to move them all one step forward in the plot. Not sure when Sanderson took over, but it was maybe a couple books after that.
What's so good about The Name of The Wind?
- Thread starter storiesweaver
- Start date
Actually, in my reading experience, that's where the series took a serious nosedive. The last book I enjoyed was #7. Something happened between that one and the next one, because #8 dragged like a five-ton weight, and #9 was more of the same. I never finished it. He had so many POV characters and storylines that it took the whole book to move them all one step forward in the plot. Not sure when Sanderson took over, but it was maybe a couple books after that.
I like his shorter works. The Emperor's Soul was wonderful. Have not read Elantris; maybe I should try that one. Couldn't get into Warbreaker or Mistborn.
Elantris is really good for a standalone. I believe it was also his dissertation piece when doing creative writing though he didn't publish it for ages. Echoes some of his later high concept work, but hey, Sanderson rocks at high concept, so I won't knock him for that. His pacing seems to work better for shorter arcs, although I remember reading that he loves to do long series.
book 7 of wot was the last decent one though they'd been petering out for awhile. 10 is where it start going backwards in time. I believe Sanderson wrote 12 and 13 (were there 14 in the end? Not sure), and I've read a little bit of 12. It was, in all honesty, miles better than the later ones RJ had done.
I can't summon up any resentment for WoT. I know objectively it wasn't a good series for various reasons but it has too much teenage nostalgia attached to it
Plus I'd never have moved to England and got married if not for WoT, so yeah, there's also that.
book 7 of wot was the last decent one though they'd been petering out for awhile. 10 is where it start going backwards in time. I believe Sanderson wrote 12 and 13 (were there 14 in the end? Not sure), and I've read a little bit of 12. It was, in all honesty, miles better than the later ones RJ had done.
I can't summon up any resentment for WoT. I know objectively it wasn't a good series for various reasons but it has too much teenage nostalgia attached to it
Plus I'd never have moved to England and got married if not for WoT, so yeah, there's also that.
Weirdly, Elantris was the one Sanderson book I couldn't get teens into. Both Rothfuss and Sanderson have an issue with fantasy where the magic systems are rather scientific in character. This annoys me, though it's a perfectly legitimate approach and each to their own.
At risk of OT, Rachel Neumeier has a good article on this topic.
https://www.rachelneumeier.com/2017/08/09/folk-magic/
At risk of OT, Rachel Neumeier has a good article on this topic.
https://www.rachelneumeier.com/2017/08/09/folk-magic/
zanzjan
killin' all teh werds
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
VPXI
Super Member
Registered
Maybe this is just me, and maybe this is obscure, but did anyone else read this description and suddenly have traumatic flashbacks to Night of the Elven Vampire?
I wish I remembered who said this, but someone once told me that writers notice everything an author does wrong, while readers notice what the author does right.
It's certainly been a not-uncommon experience for me to finish (or sometimes not) a book and think, "I would have loved this before I started writing", but instead I am left with a handful of irkies about pacing, language flow, plot holes, etc. Sometimes that's a real bummer.
Hrm, I think I was about 20 when NotW came out. (Yikes, where did the time go?!) Definitely wasn't a writer then! I might have frazzled myself less if I'd had the experience to pinpoint what wasn't to my taste, though.
But in general I found the same, ie that reading tastes changed when trying to write. I'm much more tolerant of some things now, and much less tolerant of others.
But in general I found the same, ie that reading tastes changed when trying to write. I'm much more tolerant of some things now, and much less tolerant of others.
Last edited:
I can't summon up any resentment for WoT. I know objectively it wasn't a good series for various reasons but it has too much teenage nostalgia attached to it
Yeah, same here. That series got me into fantasy and reading in general. I can find faults with it now, but it will always hold a special place in my heart.
Also, it introduced me to Brandon Sanderson. I will read anything that man writes. It may not be super deep, complicated, or high literature stuff, but he appeals to the side of me that likes to sit down with a bowl of popcorn and watch likable characters do awesome things. He can keep me consistently entertained, and that it all I ask for. (Though his shorter work is hit-and-miss for me.)
It's been a long time since I read Name of the Wind. I think readers (who like it) enjoy mostly two things about the novel.
One is the way the prose can get carried away with itself. I think the reader just goes right along with it because the trip can be lovely. It hints at something poetic, and that works well with the whole musical artistic nature of the protagonist. In addition to this, the voice of the novel is consistent.
Another reason is that the reader is more interested in lingering in the world than necessarily following and solving the plot. Don't get me wrong. The reader wants an eventual confrontation with the Chandrian, but maybe that's not all of (or even most of) the reason they bought the ticket and got on the ride. There are different types of stories. Some focus on plot catalysts while others exist as an immersion into a milieu. I think a lot of writers today try to follow guidelines and rules, and that's great, but I think it can force storytellers into thinking about a somewhat narrow approach to giving readers what they want. Clearly, there are things readers want that don't fall into traditionally suggested rule sets.
When a novel like Name of the Wind comes along I think it meets the needs of an underfed market, and thus gets consumed by the malnourished and ravenous.
Now, I wouldn't argue that there aren't flaws in the novel. Some of it is downright ridiculous. But the idea that it all ends so poorly for Kvothe gives the author a certain license, I think. A license to be absurd and a little bit more ridiculous than he would otherwise get away with being. Yes, Kvothe, you're allowed to do these things because... because the reader knows that you have fallen. That you have failed. Remember, the populace loves nothing more than to build figures up and then watch them fall when they get too mighty. Kvothe appeals to that aspect of human nature.
Anyway, the above is just my opinion on it. I'd also add that I think the author may be having trouble completing the third book because he's learned more about the craft of writing over the years. Perhaps he looks back and sees a ridiculous character. Maybe he spends time wondering what he was ever thinking creating a character who could do everything better than everyone else. Maybe he feels a little foolish when he sits down to complete the series. I don't know. It's just something I sometimes wonder about and consider.
One is the way the prose can get carried away with itself. I think the reader just goes right along with it because the trip can be lovely. It hints at something poetic, and that works well with the whole musical artistic nature of the protagonist. In addition to this, the voice of the novel is consistent.
Another reason is that the reader is more interested in lingering in the world than necessarily following and solving the plot. Don't get me wrong. The reader wants an eventual confrontation with the Chandrian, but maybe that's not all of (or even most of) the reason they bought the ticket and got on the ride. There are different types of stories. Some focus on plot catalysts while others exist as an immersion into a milieu. I think a lot of writers today try to follow guidelines and rules, and that's great, but I think it can force storytellers into thinking about a somewhat narrow approach to giving readers what they want. Clearly, there are things readers want that don't fall into traditionally suggested rule sets.
When a novel like Name of the Wind comes along I think it meets the needs of an underfed market, and thus gets consumed by the malnourished and ravenous.
Now, I wouldn't argue that there aren't flaws in the novel. Some of it is downright ridiculous. But the idea that it all ends so poorly for Kvothe gives the author a certain license, I think. A license to be absurd and a little bit more ridiculous than he would otherwise get away with being. Yes, Kvothe, you're allowed to do these things because... because the reader knows that you have fallen. That you have failed. Remember, the populace loves nothing more than to build figures up and then watch them fall when they get too mighty. Kvothe appeals to that aspect of human nature.
Anyway, the above is just my opinion on it. I'd also add that I think the author may be having trouble completing the third book because he's learned more about the craft of writing over the years. Perhaps he looks back and sees a ridiculous character. Maybe he spends time wondering what he was ever thinking creating a character who could do everything better than everyone else. Maybe he feels a little foolish when he sits down to complete the series. I don't know. It's just something I sometimes wonder about and consider.
I should start off by saying I appreciated your post, and found it thoughtful. I think the voice does carry it for many.
But I strongly disagree with this bit:
One of my favorite novels is all dialogue. No narrative. Every line starts with a dash. Another one of my favorite books is a surrealist fantasy novel with very little plot, near-constant headhopping, and minimal explanation.
I just finished another book yesterday which had multiple pov in first person and explores a fictional Plato's Republic, set up by a time-travelling Athena and complete with kidnapped Sokrates. It is entirely didactic, has basically no plot, and is just an excuse to muse on the Republic's viability while stuffing as many fictional Socratic dialogues in there as possible.
The point is, I like a bit of weird. All character and no action? Sweet. Long-winded ramblings sandwiched with character dumps? Sure, if the language is pretty. Unconventional narrative with bizarro structure? Hot damn, let's go!
NotW didn't fulfill that for me at all. For a start, I can't see how it's particularly different in terms of structure. There are bits of it which read like Rothfuss has printed out a checklist of Hero's Journey and methodically ticked each bit off, then tied it all together with some pretty words. The narrative is completely formulaic. To clarify, formulaic isn't a bad thing by default. Sanderson is very formulaic and he makes that work (for me). I'm highlighting it only to combat the suggestion that NotW deviates significantly from standard narrative structure; I can see no evidence that it does.
Even if it did, similar to the examples I mentioned above, it's not sufficient to go off the rails and say with pride, "Look wot I done!" In Kiss of the Spiderwoman, writing only in dialogue mimicked a film script, playing into the narrative of two guys telling each other stories about films. The style itself is a commentary on writing, an exploration of dialogue in novels.
In The Just City, I'm occupied by philosophical themes being discussed, and character microtension.
Because there is something to replace those traditional plots, and a reason for the derailment, I'm fine with those books, and even enjoy them. I didn't find anything like that in NotW, though. The world was okay, but nothing particularly unusual. The writing was standard, with a modern slant (but not revolutionary or mind bending). It held, for me, no deeper commentary beyond the surface story.
I accept others may feel differently in this regard, but as before, I highlight that reasoning only to counter the suggestion that people who don't enjoy it are put off by things being too unusual. I like weird, and found NotW to be very normal indeed. Again (in case the point gets lost in my waffle), "normal" is good too, but in that case I'd judge what I regard as a conventional book on conventional grounds.
Ugh, and now I sound pretentious. But that's another reason I like Sanderson I guess; his books keep me grounded.
But I strongly disagree with this bit:
One of my favorite novels is all dialogue. No narrative. Every line starts with a dash. Another one of my favorite books is a surrealist fantasy novel with very little plot, near-constant headhopping, and minimal explanation.
I just finished another book yesterday which had multiple pov in first person and explores a fictional Plato's Republic, set up by a time-travelling Athena and complete with kidnapped Sokrates. It is entirely didactic, has basically no plot, and is just an excuse to muse on the Republic's viability while stuffing as many fictional Socratic dialogues in there as possible.
The point is, I like a bit of weird. All character and no action? Sweet. Long-winded ramblings sandwiched with character dumps? Sure, if the language is pretty. Unconventional narrative with bizarro structure? Hot damn, let's go!
NotW didn't fulfill that for me at all. For a start, I can't see how it's particularly different in terms of structure. There are bits of it which read like Rothfuss has printed out a checklist of Hero's Journey and methodically ticked each bit off, then tied it all together with some pretty words. The narrative is completely formulaic. To clarify, formulaic isn't a bad thing by default. Sanderson is very formulaic and he makes that work (for me). I'm highlighting it only to combat the suggestion that NotW deviates significantly from standard narrative structure; I can see no evidence that it does.
Even if it did, similar to the examples I mentioned above, it's not sufficient to go off the rails and say with pride, "Look wot I done!" In Kiss of the Spiderwoman, writing only in dialogue mimicked a film script, playing into the narrative of two guys telling each other stories about films. The style itself is a commentary on writing, an exploration of dialogue in novels.
In The Just City, I'm occupied by philosophical themes being discussed, and character microtension.
Because there is something to replace those traditional plots, and a reason for the derailment, I'm fine with those books, and even enjoy them. I didn't find anything like that in NotW, though. The world was okay, but nothing particularly unusual. The writing was standard, with a modern slant (but not revolutionary or mind bending). It held, for me, no deeper commentary beyond the surface story.
I accept others may feel differently in this regard, but as before, I highlight that reasoning only to counter the suggestion that people who don't enjoy it are put off by things being too unusual. I like weird, and found NotW to be very normal indeed. Again (in case the point gets lost in my waffle), "normal" is good too, but in that case I'd judge what I regard as a conventional book on conventional grounds.
Ugh, and now I sound pretentious. But that's another reason I like Sanderson I guess; his books keep me grounded.
Last edited:
Well, I think for a milieu story to work, the reader has to enjoy the milieu. That may be one of the issues that you ran into. If you didn't find the world particularly interesting, then invested immersion into the world probably didn't work for your taste.
I didn't mean to imply that I thought Rothfuss broke any sort of mold. Rather, I think he dressed what became a milieu story in the outfit of a hero's journey (and I believe the coupling worked well for readers). What I mean by this is that the MC doesn't spend his time trying to sufficiently chase down the plot, so to speak. It's not like he has a moment where he runs away from being the hero before finally tackling the obstacles before him. It's more like Kvothe just lingers. He survives, he lives in the world, and only occasionally does he wonder what's on the other side of that door. It's all introverted reflections on the world and characters and such around him. The elements of a hero's journey do nothing more than offer the readers a sense of familiarity.
Consider, after two mammoth sized books, do we really know who the king is that is (theoretically) going to get killed? After all, the whole of the trilogy is named after this idea of killing a king. Have we learned much about the chandrian or seen any real confrontation with them? It's been a long time since I've read these books, in fairness, but I recall more voice and focus on aspects of the magic system and bits of worldbuilding.
I think you mentioned in an earlier post about the inclusion of negative space. To me, this is an example of staying in the world longer than the plot itself would deem necessary.
All said though, it's just my theory on why the book was so well received. Wild speculation, nothing more. Personally, I enjoyed it once I got past the somewhat slow opening frame. It bothered me a bit that Kvothe was too exceptional to be true, but it didn't bother me enough to ruin my initial read through. In fact, I recall trying to come up with ways to excuse that failing as I read the novel. Perhaps Kvothe was a god and didn't know it, I considered. Perhaps Kvothe was an unreliable narrator, I considered.
ETA: In hindsight, I think Rothfuss was just writing what he enjoyed. A tragic sort of larger than life hero.
I didn't mean to imply that I thought Rothfuss broke any sort of mold. Rather, I think he dressed what became a milieu story in the outfit of a hero's journey (and I believe the coupling worked well for readers). What I mean by this is that the MC doesn't spend his time trying to sufficiently chase down the plot, so to speak. It's not like he has a moment where he runs away from being the hero before finally tackling the obstacles before him. It's more like Kvothe just lingers. He survives, he lives in the world, and only occasionally does he wonder what's on the other side of that door. It's all introverted reflections on the world and characters and such around him. The elements of a hero's journey do nothing more than offer the readers a sense of familiarity.
Consider, after two mammoth sized books, do we really know who the king is that is (theoretically) going to get killed? After all, the whole of the trilogy is named after this idea of killing a king. Have we learned much about the chandrian or seen any real confrontation with them? It's been a long time since I've read these books, in fairness, but I recall more voice and focus on aspects of the magic system and bits of worldbuilding.
I think you mentioned in an earlier post about the inclusion of negative space. To me, this is an example of staying in the world longer than the plot itself would deem necessary.
All said though, it's just my theory on why the book was so well received. Wild speculation, nothing more. Personally, I enjoyed it once I got past the somewhat slow opening frame. It bothered me a bit that Kvothe was too exceptional to be true, but it didn't bother me enough to ruin my initial read through. In fact, I recall trying to come up with ways to excuse that failing as I read the novel. Perhaps Kvothe was a god and didn't know it, I considered. Perhaps Kvothe was an unreliable narrator, I considered.
ETA: In hindsight, I think Rothfuss was just writing what he enjoyed. A tragic sort of larger than life hero.
Last edited:
To quote Thomas Wagner from SF Reviews (on Wise Man's Fear):
[FONT="]"I mean no disrespect to my fellow critics, but come on, fellas. If we haven't learned to be cynical of hype yet, it's time we did. Here's the skinny from someone whose deep love of fantasy fiction has, I hope, been made abundantly plain in ten years of online reviewing: [/FONT]The Wise Man's Fear[FONT="] is the meandering, undisciplined story of a meandering, undisciplined young man, by a meandering, undisciplined young writer. In a gloriously ironic example of art mirroring life, [/FONT][FONT="]the young writer is being made a legend by the indiscriminate praise of people exaggerating his skills and talents, just as his young protagonist is being made a legend by the spreading of stories that exaggerate his actual accomplishments."
[/FONT]And that's the whole series in a nutshell for me.
My criticism of negative space wasn't really that it deviated from the plot into worldbuilding (such as it is), but that it deviates into nothing. It's a lazy way of trying to be clever, especially when there's so much of it.
[FONT="][/FONT]I'm the opposite of you, though. I found the first seven chapters with adult Kvothe alright, and began to struggle only when 15 year old boyhood-wishfulfillment Kvothe showed up.
[FONT="]"I mean no disrespect to my fellow critics, but come on, fellas. If we haven't learned to be cynical of hype yet, it's time we did. Here's the skinny from someone whose deep love of fantasy fiction has, I hope, been made abundantly plain in ten years of online reviewing: [/FONT]The Wise Man's Fear[FONT="] is the meandering, undisciplined story of a meandering, undisciplined young man, by a meandering, undisciplined young writer. In a gloriously ironic example of art mirroring life, [/FONT][FONT="]the young writer is being made a legend by the indiscriminate praise of people exaggerating his skills and talents, just as his young protagonist is being made a legend by the spreading of stories that exaggerate his actual accomplishments."
[/FONT]And that's the whole series in a nutshell for me.
My criticism of negative space wasn't really that it deviated from the plot into worldbuilding (such as it is), but that it deviates into nothing. It's a lazy way of trying to be clever, especially when there's so much of it.
[FONT="][/FONT]I'm the opposite of you, though. I found the first seven chapters with adult Kvothe alright, and began to struggle only when 15 year old boyhood-wishfulfillment Kvothe showed up.
Oh man I LOVE NotW, so I have to chime in here. I completely agree with JoB42's earlier post: the lyrical prose and the fully immersive world really do it for me. In addition, I love a hyper-competent MC, which I know is one of the things people dislike about this series. I love the tone of Kvothe's first person POV parts; he feels much more real than so many other characters I read. His quirks, his humor, his arrogance, his annoying love story, his serious lapses in judgment or kindness (wtf happened with that street kid he set on fire?!) -- all of it combines into a complex, authentic-seeming person, rather than a contrived and overly-consistent approximation of a person that so many authors create. I also love the minutiae of the world and the way the story meanders (which is another thing people dislike about it). I guess lots of the things I love are just matters of taste, plain and simple.
I would disagree with Harlequin that it's formulaic. It's too meandering... there are tons of parts that would automatically be cut in a more formulaic story, which are included in NoTW. And -- I believe -- all of those parts that currently seem like "negative space" (as another commenter called it), will turn out to play a role in the resolution of the series.
I would also add: I'm just starting in on Sanderson (currently on 3rd Mistborn book) and I think Sanderson and Rothfuss are almost opposites. One has really rich characterization and worldbuilding and beautiful prose, the other is rather sparse on all accounts. Sure, I know Sanderson does some deep worldbuilding, but the worlds and the characters (at least in Mistborn) don't FEEL that deep to me. Maybe it's because I listen to Writing Excuses and am hyper-aware of Sanderson's application of craft, so I don't get fully immersed... but the fact remains that I don't get fully immersed! Love the plots though -- keeps me turning the pages!
I would disagree with Harlequin that it's formulaic. It's too meandering... there are tons of parts that would automatically be cut in a more formulaic story, which are included in NoTW. And -- I believe -- all of those parts that currently seem like "negative space" (as another commenter called it), will turn out to play a role in the resolution of the series.
I would also add: I'm just starting in on Sanderson (currently on 3rd Mistborn book) and I think Sanderson and Rothfuss are almost opposites. One has really rich characterization and worldbuilding and beautiful prose, the other is rather sparse on all accounts. Sure, I know Sanderson does some deep worldbuilding, but the worlds and the characters (at least in Mistborn) don't FEEL that deep to me. Maybe it's because I listen to Writing Excuses and am hyper-aware of Sanderson's application of craft, so I don't get fully immersed... but the fact remains that I don't get fully immersed! Love the plots though -- keeps me turning the pages!
I tried it based on this thread, got a couple chapters in and put it down. Waay too long to get to the story, nothing really interesting up to where I read to, not for me.
I don't get the worldbuilding comments. I genuinely don't. NotW is surely just another run of the mill, pseudo-medieval (western) setting. There's nothing wrong with that, but my socks are still firmly on, as they say.
Formulaic and meandering are not mutually exclusive. I suppose being mostly plot free breaks with the norm, but it's fully hero's journey as much as the next doorstopper fantasy (and that's really quite okay--nothing wrong with hero's journey).
I think you've misunderstood what I mean about negative space. It's specifically when Kvothe ponders that he could do, say, look, or think about something--and then cheekily tells you he won't, or hasn't. It's nothing to do with the plot at all, future or current. It's simply narrative space given over to describe something which hasn't happened, been spoken, been done, or been looked at.
I can't give you a direct quote since I don't own a copy of the book, but I could borrow it again to find a passage for what I mean if that would help.
He does this for *paragraphs* at a time. So much negative space. If it had anything at all to do with the emotional interiority or worldbuilding, I'd at least chalk it up to sneaky info dump and probably not mind, but it's mostly just empty, contentless "voice".
However, I appreciate that if you really buy into Kvothes voice, that could well be extremely engaging or just pleasant to read. In the end that's probably what it all comes down to. I've certainly read far more flawed books (though none of them had the crazy fame notw has accrued).
Formulaic and meandering are not mutually exclusive. I suppose being mostly plot free breaks with the norm, but it's fully hero's journey as much as the next doorstopper fantasy (and that's really quite okay--nothing wrong with hero's journey).
I think you've misunderstood what I mean about negative space. It's specifically when Kvothe ponders that he could do, say, look, or think about something--and then cheekily tells you he won't, or hasn't. It's nothing to do with the plot at all, future or current. It's simply narrative space given over to describe something which hasn't happened, been spoken, been done, or been looked at.
I can't give you a direct quote since I don't own a copy of the book, but I could borrow it again to find a passage for what I mean if that would help.
He does this for *paragraphs* at a time. So much negative space. If it had anything at all to do with the emotional interiority or worldbuilding, I'd at least chalk it up to sneaky info dump and probably not mind, but it's mostly just empty, contentless "voice".
However, I appreciate that if you really buy into Kvothes voice, that could well be extremely engaging or just pleasant to read. In the end that's probably what it all comes down to. I've certainly read far more flawed books (though none of them had the crazy fame notw has accrued).
Last edited:
For me, I was drawn into Name of the Wind by Rothfuss's voice. I continued reading because of the intriguing question of truth, myth, storytelling, history, legend, and the unreliable narrator. I believe Rothfuss has done a wonderful job of weaving the varied degrees of "truth" into the multilayered narrative, while playing about with (and often subverting) genre expectations. The Kingkiller Chronicles challenges metanarrative assumptions, and the voice continues to excel.
This is one big reason why I couldn't get into Sanderson's Cosmere books...too much organization of magic. I like playing D&D but reading it can be boring for me. I'm much more into writing 'folk magic' with a little organization and consistency.
Oh yes, totally agree that it's hero's journey (which is another thing I love). I don't usually think of hero's journey as a formula, since it was originally described as a collection of traits that stories across the world tend to contain. The only time it becomes too formulaic for me is when people are clearly *trying* to hit the various traits -- like the hero was immaculately conceived for no reason that relates to the actual story, etc. (I think this happened in Star Wars?) or if it's too beat-beat-beat-beat style of hollywood movies...
No I know what you mean - like when he mentioned in the second book about surviving a shipwreck and said he didn't want to talk about it. I like this as a part of his tone, but I can see how it would be obnoxious (like a lot of aspects of his tone lol).
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,130
- Reaction score
- 10,901
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
The book has a very slow start, imo. It does get more interesting once the set up is done, and the reader is getting Kvothe's first-person narrative. There's a reason for all the set up, but I'm another person whose socks were not knocked off by the beginning. That may be down to an appreciation of the voice and style it's written in. If someone is a fan of that kind of narrative voice, they probably wouldn't be as bothered by the slow pace. I'm not terribly fond of that kind of narrative, however. The prologue, in particular, that bit about the silence of four parts (or whatever it was) had me wondering, "WTF is this? The kind of beginning everyone tells us all never to write, and for good reason." I know some people who loved it, though. They felt the writing was beautiful.
I bought the book because I opened it and read the line about the silence of three parts. I thought it was perfect.
I could take or leave the three part silence thing.
Not sure about it being recycled three more times, though. Using it in the prologue and epilogue for both books (and, presumably, the third book) seems a tad cheeky.
Not sure about it being recycled three more times, though. Using it in the prologue and epilogue for both books (and, presumably, the third book) seems a tad cheeky.
Last edited:
Tangentially related: Those who did enjoy the novel, may be interested in this Kick Starter for a Name of the Wind art deck of playing cards.
The "hero's journey" as laid out as a collection of traits was spectacularly Euro-centric. It does not really relate to all types of fiction or storytelling. (Which is part of why some folks find it more annoying than others.)
Probably to pay the artists up front. I know he worked a deal with some jewelry/props company to sell NotW jewelry and other merchandise. Same outfit doing Sanderson's stuff and some other SFF writers' merch.
The Kickstarter certainly has legs: it's currently up to $411K. Ah, fan service, how I envy you.
The Kickstarter certainly has legs: it's currently up to $411K. Ah, fan service, how I envy you.
Last edited: