What's so good about The Name of The Wind?

As a lot of people have said, I thought it was a decent enough book, but expected a lot more from the hype. I think it comes down to the fact that I didn't care for the protagonist much. I think I could have liked it a lot more if I cared about Kvothe more. That said, I suppose their must be something to the book that's getting so many people to love it so much, so whatever they want to read gets reconized I guess.

Gabriela Jessica said:

I have read The Name of The Wind. I think it's a good book but I don't think it's sublime. And the books sold more than Brandon Sanderson's books (who I think is on par with Patrick Rothfuss and can produce more books) What is it that make the book so popular?

Click to expand...

I can only give my reaction to it when I first read it. The writing was very good and the story pulled me right in. I found it amusing and interesting to read about Kvothe's exploits, and there were mysteries I wanted to know the answer to. The second book I found...disappointing.

SillyLittleTwit said:

The Slow Regard of Silent Things is actually Rothfuss' best work.

Click to expand...

I loved that story. Loved it, loved it. I found myself looking at my surroundings in an entirely different way after reading it. But I don't think it would make a lick of sense to anyone who hadn't already met Auri and the Underthing in The Name of the Wind.

I also enjoyed a short story he wrote about Bast. Quite entertaining, and provided a little insight into who and what Bast is.

I agree with the others about the second half of Wise Man's Fear. It was kind of excruciating to read.

I thought Bast was the most intriguing character in NoTW. I kept hoping to see him show up in the "flashback" part of the story narrated by Kvothe in first person.

Kvothe grated on me, perhaps because he reminded me of a couple of kids I knew growing up. This doesn't speak badly of Rothfuss, though, since he obviously had the ability to create a character who just so happened to be irritating to me.

The writing didn't grab me that much either. It felt to me like it could have benefited from another editing pass. I found it somewhat awkward, adverb heavy, overlong, and overwritten, but enough people say it's really good that it's probably the sad truth that I don't know what good writing is, or I actually prefer writing that isn't good or something. It's not the first time people have rhapsodized about writing in a book I felt was so-so (in terms of the craft exhibited).

Which might explain why I can't get my own writing published

This thread is slowly restoring my faith in humanity. Well, until I read the news tomorrow, anyway. Short lived restoration.

Harlequin said:

This thread is slowly restoring my faith in humanity. Well, until I read the news tomorrow, anyway. Short lived restoration.

Click to expand...

One reason I partake of AW is to help me restore my faith in humanity (which has indeed taken a beating in recent years, and especially in recent months).

Roxxsmom said:

The writing didn't grab me that much either. It felt to me like it could have benefited from another editing pass. I found it somewhat awkward, adverb heavy, overlong, and overwritten, but enough people say it's really good that it's probably the sad truth that I don't know what good writing is, or I actually prefer writing that isn't good or something.

Click to expand...

Oh, I doubt that! Everyone has preferences, writing can be "good" in more than one way, and no one agrees on the definition of good writing anyway.

For a really long time, I honestly thought I was going crazy in an Emperor's New Clothes kind of way. The whole internet seemed to love Name of the sodding Wind and so did all my friends IRL who read fantasy. I can sometimes be a little obsessive, so naturally went a little overboard critically analysing the book in a frantic bid to understand what it was everyone else seemed to see, that I was missing.

all in all, it's fairly similar to my experience of Harry Potter as a child (everyone else at school loving it, and me being bemused by the fuss).

If (big if) he ever completes the third one, I might check for reviews of it here in case it pulls itself together. Although even then I might skip finishing off the second, because no series finale is worth Felurian.

I'm in the camp that liked the first book much better than the second (though I didn't pick up on the problematic vibes other people are citing, I can be a bit oblivious when it comes to such) but I hesitate to call wish fulfillment because everything in the books is foreshadowing that things are going to go terribly, horribly wrong for Kvothe in ways that have been left to the third book to tell. Cocky Kvothe has comeuppance due to him and Kote has the vision of hindsight (and a lot of self-blame).

In the first book at least, I liked how Kvothe/Kote is being set up as a deconstruction of a fantasy hero, how it's scarred him how the things he's famous/infamous for differ from the things that actually matter to him, what shame, fear or failure drove him into hiding.

Harlequin said:

all in all, it's fairly similar to my experience of Harry Potter as a child (everyone else at school loving it, and me being bemused by the fuss).

Click to expand...

Now I genuinely enjoyed Harry Potter, even though I wasn't a kid when I read it. And I re-read it recently and enjoyed it again. However, I'd never claim that Rowling has literary writing chops. I enjoyed the overall voice and tone, but I definitely found the writing uneven in places, the punctuation inconsistent, and it was also rather adverb heavy.

It's hard to explain why I can like some books in spite of what seems like to me to be mediocre writing at a craft level. And there were some things about NoTW that were clever and well done re world building, magic college, and magic system and so on. So maybe it was just Kvothe's arc that didn't grab me as much. I suspect book two would drive me even more nuts, if the perspective becomes even more egotistical and focused on his specialness. Of course, some have floated an unreliable narrator as an explanation for this, so maybe he really wasn't all that hot (he certainly doesn't sound or look terribly hot based on in-book descriptions or cover art I've seen) or have been able to teach a sex goddess about the arts of love.

I agree that the idea of a formerly great mage/hero ending up as an emotionally scarred, burnt-out husk is intriguing and far from unrealistic. He's not the first writer who's done this, however (and in these cynical times and with the tendency for series to go on and on and on long after a happily ever after ending would have worked, he certainly won't be the last). Heck, Le Guin had this element in her Earthsea series, especially in the later books.

It might be interesting to point out that a difference between you (a seasoned writer) and the average reader is the tendency to notice what you consider to be flaws of technical craft. The average reader is more likely to notice them only if they're especially egregious...or if they notice they may not care if it doesn't noticeably throw them off of reading. If the writing absorbs them into the world and gets them to care about the characters, it succeeds, IMO. Obviously that success is inherently subjective.

I think the bigger issue I had with the second book is that while it advanced Kvothe's character development it dragged when it came to advancing the plot or his relationships with the other characters. Having that go on too long is something that will eventually cause me to give up on a series like I did on The Wheel of Time around book 7 or so.

HP is more straightforward, and purely personal: I don't like magic-school stories. It could be the best magic school series ever written (some think it is) and it'd still not engage me There's not a lot Rowling can do about that one.

NotW is more complex and nuanced, though of course still personal.

• Negative space was a big annoyance to me. Rothfuss seemed to frequently write things like "if Character did X, then Y would happen, which in turn would cause more events to occur... but he didn't, and instead stared at the wall" or whatever. A little at a time can be clever, but there was *loads* of it. To me, the narrative felt defined by those frequent negative spaces. I want more of things that DID happen, not things that could have but didn't.

• Everything about Deanna was badly handled. It felt like she existed only to make Kvothe look good, and same for the other characters really. This I would probably excuse since it's first person and does contribute to commentary on Kvothe's personality, but it still felt (to me) like careless characterisation rather than intentional disregard.

• Not sure what the dead parents are doing for Kvothe. Actually, I'm still not sure (after 2.5 books out of 3) what the heck is going on with the plot. He's done a bit of a George RR Martin, seems like--here's a fantasy plot, but nevermind that, let's go get lost in the window dressing. Kvothe is remarkably uninterested in solving his own mystery, and in many cases literally waits for plot to encounter him.

• Instead of plot there seems to be a series of narrative hooks, drawing the reader from one chapter to the rest, but without payoff at the end. No payoff in book 1 I could be fine with, but there isn't any in book2 either. I didn't think Kvothe changed at all between book 1 and 2 (at least not to explain the leap in character from his adult self and his teenage self) but other people seem to feel differently.

• On the unreliable narrator stuff... yeah, the book was recommended to me by people who said "Oh hey, you love unreliable narrators, so you'll love this!"
  
  The thing is, every first person narration is unreliable to a point. However, some are unreliable beyond the norm--and the extent of that depends on the type of unreliablethey are. I personally prefer Liars and Madmen, but I'll read any of them. Kvothe is supposed to be a Picaro, or perhaps a Clown, but doesn't (imo) meet the criteria for either since telling the "mundane" story is a direct contradiction with bragging about his life. He can't go out of his way to insist that everything is mundane and dull while also bigging himself up. The end result is that the narrative suggests he's being honest, rather than unreliable.
  
  The only parts I got the notably unreliable vibe was when he glossed over the apparently amazing things he'd done like fight loads of pirates or have amazing adventures which he won't tell you about. For the rest, he seemed "normal" unreliable (ie same as any first person narration).
  
  Harry Ransom from 'The Rise of Ransom City' is, I feel, a much stronger example of a Picaro; he describes mundane events as if they were fantastic, and glosses over disasters, of which he encounters many (so, the opposite of Kvothe). He also writes different letters to his three sisters for the same events, and spins the truth in three different ways to each of them. A really wonderful, engaging character, while of course still being a total toss-post who inadvertently drags a continent into war.

Okay, that's enough obsessing. You'll have to forgive me; I can't cope with not knowing why I don't like a book, particularly when everyone else does, and for this reason usually avoid popular books that I think I'll dislike. (I know I hate vampires, for example, so never read Twilight). But having stumbled into Notw--not that I could avoid it, when it was everywhere in sff crowds--I needed to deconstruct for my own sanity what about it falls flat for me. And, it seems, I still can't avoid threads about it.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, Wheel of Time went on too long. Planned trilogy that he kept milking for cash. I stopped reading when the books started going backwards in time.

I mentioned this thread to one of my reading partners, and he laughed. He is very critical of the author, not because of his work, necessarily, though he isn't a huge fan, but more because of how this author presents himself on panels with other authors and in interviews. I haven't looked to much into him as a person, and don't do that for any author. To quote my favorite musical, my friend says Patrick is like Alexander Hamilton, "Why do you assume you're the smartest in the room? Soon that attitude may be your doom."

I've been on a panel with him, and saw the same behavior. I can forgive many Silly Author Tricks if the author's work is brilliant.

Now I want to read this book when I previously had no interest in it!

Speaking of the Wheel of Time, is there a synopsis somewhere of all the books, and how the series is eventually resolved?

For me the Name of the Wind was just too slow. Everything seemed to drag and Kvothe annoyed me. I am not bothering with the rest of the series.

I'm yet to pick up a Sanderson book, but the WoT is on my list.

I've been on panels with well-regarded authors who are, in that situation, more than a bit overbearing. People handle public appearances differently, and I think it's both unfair and disingenuous to read too much into someone's con behavior. So maybe if folks want to critique the book they can stick with critiquing the book? Just a request.

arikdiver said:

For me the Name of the Wind was just too slow. Everything seemed to drag and Kvothe annoyed me. I am not bothering with the rest of the series.

I'm yet to pick up a Sanderson book, but the WoT is on my list.

Click to expand...

If NotW was too slow, I'll be a bit surprised if you think Sanderson isn't.

Personally, this thread is making me want to go back and re-read Name of the Wind again...

MonsterTamer said:

I mentioned this thread to one of my reading partners, and he laughed. He is very critical of the author, not because of his work, necessarily, though he isn't a huge fan, but more because of how this author presents himself on panels with other authors and in interviews. I haven't looked to much into him as a person, and don't do that for any author.

Click to expand...

I infrequently read Rothfuss' blog, and I have to say, whatever he may be like as a fellow panelist at cons, or a guy to rub elbows with on a bar stool, he blogs across as a pretty decent fellow. He does spend a fair bit of time blogging about his upcoming projects & where he's going to be book-signing & whatnot -- typical author-type stuff.

But he also posts a fair bit of material about various fundraisers he's involved in such this one about saving pocket change for donations through Heifer International.

Whatever else a person's foibles are or may be, that kind of behavior raises them up in my estimation.

arikdiver said:

For me the Name of the Wind was just too slow. Everything seemed to drag and Kvothe annoyed me. I am not bothering with the rest of the series.

I'm yet to pick up a Sanderson book, but the WoT is on my list.

Click to expand...

I stopped reading The Wheel of Time at Book 5 when I realized it was basically Dune in a fantasy world without any of the social science depth. (I had not read the books Dune prior to that, but when I did I realized... well, I wasn't interested in TWOT any more.)

Seconding the Rothfuss blog: I catch it infrequently but it's pretty good.

I try to give authors a pass if their writing transcends their social awkwardness. Or vice versa. I love GRRM's comments on blogs, but not GoT. A couple of old famous fantasy authors are either my favorite people in a crowd, or my joy to read...but not both. Some I loathe so much I can't enjoy their writing.

WoT? Stopped reading around book 4 or 5 for much the same reason as Aggy. Sanderson? I liked Warbreaker somewhat, and I'll eventually give his opus a try. Poor Rothfuss, though: money could not make me read Book 2 or probably 3.

Introversion said:

If NotW was too slow, I'll be a bit surprised if you think Sanderson isn't.

Personally, this thread is making me want to go back and re-read Name of the Wind again...

Click to expand...

Good to know. I'll probably still read the first book anyway.

arikdiver said:

Good to know. I'll probably still read the first book anyway.

Click to expand...

You do know Sanderson only finished the series after Robert Jordan died after nine (?) books, right? Just checking.

In any case, the first book is fine and maybe even the first three; supposedly the series started getting it's act back together around book eight or nine, then Sanderson took two books to wrap it up from Jordan's notes.

I have a lot of respect for Sanderson as a writer. His actual books are hit and miss *for my taste* but he works extremely hard at his career.

I kinda wish he wrote more standalones. His standalone novels are fun and a rare thing in a genre dominated by series.

Way of Kings did nothing jor me but Elantris, one of his earliest novels, is excellent.

Yeah, I know. I love series, so if I make it that far, all good. If not, I'll just have to try another of Sanderson's books - a standalone.