I don't think I want to live in a world where PA's literary tastes are considered "snobby". I mean, most of the books they tend to talk about tend to be fantasy/sci-fi!
(Not to disparage either genre but normally the literature snob cliche is that they turn their nose at those genres, no?)
I'm pretty sure the news post for that showed that his criteria for books back then was sci-fi books with planets or spaceships on the cover, or with Star Wars in the title!
Well then I have a problem with his communication delivery as a whole. It's fine if he writes the way he speaks, and kudos to him for maintaining consistency, but I can still dislike the style. The comics are (typically) great and I enjoy their work; I went to PAX, etc. But I don't think I would get through more than a few pages of a book written in the style of his blog posts.
I remember one of the podcasts from the original season when Jerry used an exotic word that Mike questioned him about. He couldn't come up with a definition but knew that it somehow fit his meaning. They looked it up and it fit perfectly. It was really odd. My brain had a hard time rationalizing how someone else's brain could know how to use a word in a sentence without actually knowing it's meaning.
I do this frequently. I know I do this because I have little kids and sometimes when they ask me what a word I used means I can't tell them. I know the word means what I am trying to say, but I can't describe the definition. I always thought it came from decades of constantly reading and so understanding a word from the context but never having looked it up. I don't want to insult those who don't do this by implying you haven't read enough; rather I guess perhaps it's just a quirk of my brain.
I also find that I know how a lot of words are spelled but not how they're properly pronounced and assume that's from too much reading and not enough talking.
I do this constantly. It's a joke between my dad and I. He tells me that I must score points for every superfluous syllable in a sentence, (Although he probably doesn't use the word superfluous.) and I tell him he doesn't know any words over 2 syllables. (Both are, of course, good spirited exaggerations.) When I use a big word he doesn't know, he often asks me what it means and makes fun of me for having to look it up. Usually I used it properly, I just didn't know how to define it for him easily.
It's like if you were describing something blue but then someone stopped you and asked you what blue is. You know what blue is, but how do you describe it? Blue is blue. It's just that moment where you thought you picked the words that best fit what you are trying to say, and someone asks you to pick new ones on the spot. Plus, I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm asked to define something I get suddenly self conscious and feel better about looking it up to make sure I used it right. The word comes naturally, but once it's questioned and I'm asked to be an authority on what the word means, I want to be sure.
Also, I do think it comes from reading a lot and picking up words through context. I love to read and I love to write, so I devour words.
Sooo, a hundred posts of arguing later....
I will freely admit I've never read anything Sanderson's. In fact I misremembered my author names and at first thought they were talking about Patrick Rothfuss, and I thought to myself "oh, I thought they really liked that guy" and shrugged and went on. I still chuckled at the comic. But yeah, the reaction in here is funnier. See to me, based on my interpretation of the comic, if your reaction to this joke is to come in here and try to defend Sanderson, or to recommend more things Mike or Jerry should read from him? The comic isn't making fun of Brandon Sanderson. It's making fun of you.
You could drop any fantasy author's name in there. For example, I finally gave up reading the Dresden Files partway through Summer Knight (book 4) because I just can't take it anymore. I just don't like the books. I don't like the character. I could go into more detail, but it doesn't matter to my point here. The thing is, I don't tell people this, because it doesn't really come up (and it would be rude to go into like, the Dresden Files thread and tell them why I don't like the books) and because if I did I would have people jumping on my ass about how I was being unfair, and defending why they liked the books, and telling me I should read more. Because nobody can just let it go and feel secure liking what they like if everyone else doesn't like it too.
I can feel it. I know there have to be people whose urge is to try to defend Jim Butcher and the Dresden Files to me. Resist! You're just doing what they're making fun of!
It's all good when you just don't like something. It's totally fine to loathe something I love. My mind might boggle at it, but it's okay. It's different when you make your negative opinion of something I like sound like an indictment of my taste. People these days don't know how to dislike something with grace. It's never "Yeah, it just wasn't for me." It's always "Ugh, that book was terrible."
"Yeah, it just wasn't for me," leaves me thinking; "Oh, ok. Hmm." If I'm really interested I might ask what you didn't like. If you're up for a conversation about it, I probably am too. I'm not going to try to change your mind, but maybe I'll have some observations to help the situation. Like perhaps "Oh, yeah, Book 4 was especially bad, but it gets better in the next one." Or, "Oh, you prefer female leads? Try the Kate Daniels series." If nothing else, perhaps it will prove a stimulating discussion and next time I'll have a better understanding of your tastes before I recommend something. All that is well and good.
"Ugh. That book is terrible," leaves me thinking; "Jeez, no need to be a prick about it." IT leaves me feeling defensive. You're saying, no two ways about it, that book is bad and I like bad books. My taste is bad because I like bad things.
And you know what? It's not just fans that can't shut up about their opinions. People with negative opinions always have to provide evidence to back up why they are right. The sentence structure here is terrible; the prose there is bland; this book is full of plot holes; it has nothing to say; it's just a trite and silly fantasy; grow up.
This comic reads as a one sided smack down to fans for being passionate about something, and to be honest, I much prefer people who will argue for something they love over people who will argue in order to put something down. If I have to hear one more person explain to me why the Star Wars prequels are bad and I shouldn't like them, or how comic books are immature and stupid and I must be too, or how genre fiction is just trite escapism and barely literature at all, I'll... Well, I'll grit my teeth and bear it like I always do, but it's really damned annoying.
Well, I guess I just figured because of how over-the-top the first panel is that it was tongue-in-cheek on the part of Mike and Jerry, and actually now that I read the news post and see it's because of inter-office difference of opinions on his work I definitely think that it is. I do always tell my kids not to use language like that when talking about opinions, that they should always say "I thought this was bad" or just "I didn't like it" rather than saying "this is bad." Maybe the internet needs parents to remind them of these things. Hahaha I just had a flash of some InternetMom app reading everything you type and popping up with a worried face saying "don't you think you should soften your tone here, dear?"
People will go on and on sometimes about why they don't like something. I guess it works both ways in that people who don't like things need everyone to NOT like what they like otherwise they feel defensive? Maybe they figure they're missing something everyone else is getting and that makes them self conscious deep down?
For myself I actually do itch to sometimes tell people about how I felt about the Dresden Files in more detail, but in that case I think I'm looking for absolution, that it's okay to not like it. Also because I can't quiiiiite put my finger on what it is I find so irritating about them. I do feel like I should like them and just don't. I guess that's why I read three and a half of them before giving up. I've tried to talk to my husband about it (he really likes them) but it hasn't given me any new insight.
Do you know what happens when you remove all exaggeration and hyperbole from a joke? You murder it. You monster.
You're damn right I'm a monster. Here's another one. Do you know what a meme is? It's just a running gag/inside joke on the internet. There, I've removed the magic from that one too! (inane and pathetic diabolical laughter) I'm the ultimate twatwad here to remove all enjoyment from the internet. EVER.
They ask me, "why the cabbage?" I say, "The hell if I know."
I don't think I want to live in a world where PA's literary tastes are considered "snobby". I mean, most of the books they tend to talk about tend to be fantasy/sci-fi!
(Not to disparage either genre but normally the literature snob cliche is that they turn their nose at those genres, no?)
Point taken. I kind of regretted the word snobby as soon as I used it, but I felt it fit enough to leave it alone. I don't know, it's probably not fair. Being that PA is a comedy comic, I suppose one would expect most of the references to literature to be making fun of the target. I remember a comic about Gabe trying to listen to a Star Wars book and it being to terrible to listen to, there was the one someone linked about wanting to punch a guy for being overly verbose (the irony has been pointed out, there was the direct slam on the authors that took over Dune... Like I said, the only time I can call to mind them referencing a book without implying it was terrible was The Name of The Wind.
Most of the time, the drive of the insult is the typical sort of thing slung by literature snobs. Slights on the craft and content of genre fiction.
I guess my thing is I like to make fun of things, and I like to have things I like made fun of, I just hope it's being done in good spirits. Usually it's clear that PA is making fun of something in good spirits, because they are poking fun at things they like. This time I just didn't get that vibe. I felt like they were making fun of something they don't like, and the people that like it, which just feels mean to me.
This is exactly what a lot of people have been saying, though I'd argue that it is making fun of the fans as well as Sanderson's writing directly. Still, the ultimate point is well taken. You could insert a lot of names there and the comic would not change - which itself is an indictment of Sanderson and a lot of fantasy authors in general. There's just not a lot that sets some of them apart or elevates them above the rest.
No, it sort of works as a joke, but not as a serious critique. Sanderson actually does engage in building new worlds and detailed magic systems on a scale that most fantasy authors do not. It is a true thing about his writing that is different from most other fantasy authors, and the fact that the thing would be simple to memorize and repeat does not make it less true. You couldn't insert just any other name in there and have it work
It is also not what I would say is the most defining trait of his writing, but maybe most people would disagree with me there, or else those tips wouldn't be much good.
Maybe the rest of his stuff is shit, I don't know, but I really thoroughly enjoyed his work on finishing the Wheel of Time. Gathering Storm was easily one of the best entries in that series and he took hold a lot of characters that had become really goddamned annoying and turned them completely around.
That was such a weird project though that it's probably not the best window into the rest of his work?
Sooo, a hundred posts of arguing later....
I will freely admit I've never read anything Sanderson's. In fact I misremembered my author names and at first thought they were talking about Patrick Rothfuss, and I thought to myself "oh, I thought they really liked that guy" and shrugged and went on. I still chuckled at the comic. But yeah, the reaction in here is funnier. See to me, based on my interpretation of the comic, if your reaction to this joke is to come in here and try to defend Sanderson, or to recommend more things Mike or Jerry should read from him? The comic isn't making fun of Brandon Sanderson. It's making fun of you.
You could drop any fantasy author's name in there. For example, I finally gave up reading the Dresden Files partway through Summer Knight (book 4) because I just can't take it anymore. I just don't like the books. I don't like the character. I could go into more detail, but it doesn't matter to my point here. The thing is, I don't tell people this, because it doesn't really come up (and it would be rude to go into like, the Dresden Files thread and tell them why I don't like the books) and because if I did I would have people jumping on my ass about how I was being unfair, and defending why they liked the books, and telling me I should read more. Because nobody can just let it go and feel secure liking what they like if everyone else doesn't like it too.
I can feel it. I know there have to be people whose urge is to try to defend Jim Butcher and the Dresden Files to me. Resist! You're just doing what they're making fun of!
It's all good when you just don't like something. It's totally fine to loathe something I love. My mind might boggle at it, but it's okay. It's different when you make your negative opinion of something I like sound like an indictment of my taste. People these days don't know how to dislike something with grace. It's never "Yeah, it just wasn't for me." It's always "Ugh, that book was terrible."
"Yeah, it just wasn't for me," leaves me thinking; "Oh, ok. Hmm." If I'm really interested I might ask what you didn't like. If you're up for a conversation about it, I probably am too. I'm not going to try to change your mind, but maybe I'll have some observations to help the situation. Like perhaps "Oh, yeah, Book 4 was especially bad, but it gets better in the next one." Or, "Oh, you prefer female leads? Try the Kate Daniels series." If nothing else, perhaps it will prove a stimulating discussion and next time I'll have a better understanding of your tastes before I recommend something. All that is well and good.
"Ugh. That book is terrible," leaves me thinking; "Jeez, no need to be a prick about it." IT leaves me feeling defensive. You're saying, no two ways about it, that book is bad and I like bad books. My taste is bad because I like bad things.
And you know what? It's not just fans that can't shut up about their opinions. People with negative opinions always have to provide evidence to back up why they are right. The sentence structure here is terrible; the prose there is bland; this book is full of plot holes; it has nothing to say; it's just a trite and silly fantasy; grow up.
This comic reads as a one sided smack down to fans for being passionate about something, and to be honest, I much prefer people who will argue for something they love over people who will argue in order to put something down. If I have to hear one more person explain to me why the Star Wars prequels are bad and I shouldn't like them, or how comic books are immature and stupid and I must be too, or how genre fiction is just trite escapism and barely literature at all, I'll... Well, I'll grit my teeth and bear it like I always do, but it's really damned annoying.
Well, I guess I just figured because of how over-the-top the first panel is that it was tongue-in-cheek on the part of Mike and Jerry, and actually now that I read the news post and see it's because of inter-office difference of opinions on his work I definitely think that it is. I do always tell my kids not to use language like that when talking about opinions, that they should always say "I thought this was bad" or just "I didn't like it" rather than saying "this is bad." Maybe the internet needs parents to remind them of these things. Hahaha I just had a flash of some InternetMom app reading everything you type and popping up with a worried face saying "don't you think you should soften your tone here, dear?"
People will go on and on sometimes about why they don't like something. I guess it works both ways in that people who don't like things need everyone to NOT like what they like otherwise they feel defensive? Maybe they figure they're missing something everyone else is getting and that makes them self conscious deep down?
For myself I actually do itch to sometimes tell people about how I felt about the Dresden Files in more detail, but in that case I think I'm looking for absolution, that it's okay to not like it. Also because I can't quiiiiite put my finger on what it is I find so irritating about them. I do feel like I should like them and just don't. I guess that's why I read three and a half of them before giving up. I've tried to talk to my husband about it (he really likes them) but it hasn't given me any new insight.
Yeah. I just feel like I was like everyone else in school, making fun of pop bands and such for having no talent, feeling superior to anyone who likes such stupid things, etc.. Then I started to develop my own taste and realized not everything I liked was popular. I realized how bad it felt to have people actually look down on you and act as if you must be defective because you like something. That spurred me on to realizing just how subjective taste is, and that if you don't like something you won't appreciate it's nuances the way a fan does.
Then, I go on the internet, and it's like the rest of the world skipped that stage in their development. Instead of realizing that their own tastes aren't tools for objective analysis, they just seem to think they have the line on what qualifies as good, and anyone who disagrees is just stupid or defective.
It just seems lost on the majority that "I dislike this," and "This is bad," aren't the same even though it can feel this way. I get that if you don't like something that you're going to have a bad time with it, and it can be tempting to see that as "Yuck, that was bad." But that isn't a mature or rational way to see the world.
As for Dresden, I love Dresden and I love literature. I'll talk about it all day with someone who will give me the chance. If you wanted to send me a PM to talk about it, I can take it. I'm sure it has plenty of flaws. I doubt I'll be able to say anything to help you like it better, but maybe I can let you know if the things you dislike get better later on, or if you feel like you want to like it but just don't, maybe I can recommend something similar that you might like more. I read a lot of stuff in that specific genre.
I guess my thing is I like to make fun of things, and I like to have things I like made fun of, I just hope it's being done in good spirits. Usually it's clear that PA is making fun of something in good spirits, because they are poking fun at things they like. This time I just didn't get that vibe. I felt like they were making fun of something they don't like, and the people that like it, which just feels mean to me.
The thing to keep in mind is that language like "...you read one or two pages and then threw up..." is not excpetional for Penny-Arcade. That's about as mild as an expression of disapproval will ever be. It's never "it's bad" when it could be "...you read one or two pages and then threw up..." and it's never "You're mean and that's inappropriate," when "Listen up Satan... go drink some bad poison and shit out your life." will do.
Maybe the rest of his stuff is shit, I don't know, but I really thoroughly enjoyed his work on finishing the Wheel of Time. Gathering Storm was easily one of the best entries in that series and he took hold a lot of characters that had become really goddamned annoying and turned them completely around.
That was such a weird project though that it's probably not the best window into the rest of his work?
I'm working through Wheel of Time again, revitalized by the knowledge the last few books were written by someone who knows what he's doing. I always wanted to know how that story ended, but I'd given up hope Robert Jordan would ever finish it long before I heard he was sick.
Anyway, I haven't gotten to the Sanderson books in the series yet, but... most of his stuff is pretty thematically different from the Wheel of Time. Except for The Way of Kings, where he comes pretty close to telling a standard fantasy story, and uses a fairly large number of characters.
Sooo, a hundred posts of arguing later....
I will freely admit I've never read anything Sanderson's. In fact I misremembered my author names and at first thought they were talking about Patrick Rothfuss, and I thought to myself "oh, I thought they really liked that guy" and shrugged and went on. I still chuckled at the comic. But yeah, the reaction in here is funnier. See to me, based on my interpretation of the comic, if your reaction to this joke is to come in here and try to defend Sanderson, or to recommend more things Mike or Jerry should read from him? The comic isn't making fun of Brandon Sanderson. It's making fun of you.
You could drop any fantasy author's name in there. For example, I finally gave up reading the Dresden Files partway through Summer Knight (book 4) because I just can't take it anymore. I just don't like the books. I don't like the character. I could go into more detail, but it doesn't matter to my point here. The thing is, I don't tell people this, because it doesn't really come up (and it would be rude to go into like, the Dresden Files thread and tell them why I don't like the books) and because if I did I would have people jumping on my ass about how I was being unfair, and defending why they liked the books, and telling me I should read more. Because nobody can just let it go and feel secure liking what they like if everyone else doesn't like it too.
I can feel it. I know there have to be people whose urge is to try to defend Jim Butcher and the Dresden Files to me. Resist! You're just doing what they're making fun of!
It's all good when you just don't like something. It's totally fine to loathe something I love. My mind might boggle at it, but it's okay. It's different when you make your negative opinion of something I like sound like an indictment of my taste. People these days don't know how to dislike something with grace. It's never "Yeah, it just wasn't for me." It's always "Ugh, that book was terrible."
"Yeah, it just wasn't for me," leaves me thinking; "Oh, ok. Hmm." If I'm really interested I might ask what you didn't like. If you're up for a conversation about it, I probably am too. I'm not going to try to change your mind, but maybe I'll have some observations to help the situation. Like perhaps "Oh, yeah, Book 4 was especially bad, but it gets better in the next one." Or, "Oh, you prefer female leads? Try the Kate Daniels series." If nothing else, perhaps it will prove a stimulating discussion and next time I'll have a better understanding of your tastes before I recommend something. All that is well and good.
"Ugh. That book is terrible," leaves me thinking; "Jeez, no need to be a prick about it." IT leaves me feeling defensive. You're saying, no two ways about it, that book is bad and I like bad books. My taste is bad because I like bad things.
And you know what? It's not just fans that can't shut up about their opinions. People with negative opinions always have to provide evidence to back up why they are right. The sentence structure here is terrible; the prose there is bland; this book is full of plot holes; it has nothing to say; it's just a trite and silly fantasy; grow up.
This comic reads as a one sided smack down to fans for being passionate about something, and to be honest, I much prefer people who will argue for something they love over people who will argue in order to put something down. If I have to hear one more person explain to me why the Star Wars prequels are bad and I shouldn't like them, or how comic books are immature and stupid and I must be too, or how genre fiction is just trite escapism and barely literature at all, I'll... Well, I'll grit my teeth and bear it like I always do, but it's really damned annoying.
Well, I guess I just figured because of how over-the-top the first panel is that it was tongue-in-cheek on the part of Mike and Jerry, and actually now that I read the news post and see it's because of inter-office difference of opinions on his work I definitely think that it is. I do always tell my kids not to use language like that when talking about opinions, that they should always say "I thought this was bad" or just "I didn't like it" rather than saying "this is bad." Maybe the internet needs parents to remind them of these things. Hahaha I just had a flash of some InternetMom app reading everything you type and popping up with a worried face saying "don't you think you should soften your tone here, dear?"
People will go on and on sometimes about why they don't like something. I guess it works both ways in that people who don't like things need everyone to NOT like what they like otherwise they feel defensive? Maybe they figure they're missing something everyone else is getting and that makes them self conscious deep down?
For myself I actually do itch to sometimes tell people about how I felt about the Dresden Files in more detail, but in that case I think I'm looking for absolution, that it's okay to not like it. Also because I can't quiiiiite put my finger on what it is I find so irritating about them. I do feel like I should like them and just don't. I guess that's why I read three and a half of them before giving up. I've tried to talk to my husband about it (he really likes them) but it hasn't given me any new insight.
Yeah. I just feel like I was like everyone else in school, making fun of pop bands and such for having no talent, feeling superior to anyone who likes such stupid things, etc.. Then I started to develop my own taste and realized not everything I liked was popular. I realized how bad it felt to have people actually look down on you and act as if you must be defective because you like something. That spurred me on to realizing just how subjective taste is, and that if you don't like something you won't appreciate it's nuances the way a fan does.
Then, I go on the internet, and it's like the rest of the world skipped that stage in their development. Instead of realizing that their own tastes aren't tools for objective analysis, they just seem to think they have the line on what qualifies as good, and anyone who disagrees is just stupid or defective.
It just seems lost on the majority that "I dislike this," and "This is bad," aren't the same even though it can feel this way. I get that if you don't like something that you're going to have a bad time with it, and it can be tempting to see that as "Yuck, that was bad." But that isn't a mature or rational way to see the world.
As for Dresden, I love Dresden and I love literature. I'll talk about it all day with someone who will give me the chance. If you wanted to send me a PM to talk about it, I can take it. I'm sure it has plenty of flaws. I doubt I'll be able to say anything to help you like it better, but maybe I can let you know if the things you dislike get better later on, or if you feel like you want to like it but just don't, maybe I can recommend something similar that you might like more. I read a lot of stuff in that specific genre.
Iunno, I think on the internet people say "This is bad" instead of "In my opinion, this is bad" because when you're giving your thoughts on something that's subjective it's assumed that you're giving your opinion instead of stating an objective fact (heck I'd argue this applies in general, not just on the internet). It's a bit redundant and in this fast paced internet culture we live in, redundancy tends to be mercilessly slaughtered. Plus when most people call something bad I think it's a bit hasty to assume that they mean the people that like it are bad too (unless they outright say it, of course. At which case feel free to fire away).
When someone off handedly makes fun of something I like it is like having my arm fed into a woodchipper. I can feel my very Mana bleedng away from my being (along with all of my blood) and I feel compelled to shriek like a banshee.
The joke of this comic is "Holy fuck are you tired of hearing about this? Here is how to camouflage yourself so you can escape the discussion" not "Sanderson is THE GREAT SATAN"
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited September 2013
I read the Mistborn trilogy.
It was pretty okay.
That said I honestly hate arguments when it comes to personal taste. Because its either boils down to "You're dumb for liking this thing." that goes nowhere or someone gives you a long drawn out explanation for why you're dumb for liking this thing.
And really this is pretty much how every single one of those arguments end.
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
Yeah. That's kind of the thing I hate like.
When someone really hates something you like, but you don't care, but they really want you to care that they don't like the thing you like...and you just sit there...slowly dying.
0
Options
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
No, it sort of works as a joke, but not as a serious critique. Sanderson actually does engage in building new worlds and detailed magic systems on a scale that most fantasy authors do not. It is a true thing about his writing that is different from most other fantasy authors, and the fact that the thing would be simple to memorize and repeat does not make it less true. You couldn't insert just any other name in there and have it work
It is also not what I would say is the most defining trait of his writing, but maybe most people would disagree with me there, or else those tips wouldn't be much good.
This is the one thing that kind of bugs me about the comic. I appreciate where it's coming from, but being a good world-builder isn't just a vague compliment - it's important to fantasy and is something very few writers are actually good at. Sanderson definitely is up there in that department, and I think that's part of the appeal of his writing to engineers and geeks - everything fits, and there's a fair amount you can dissect - though there are still mysteries to his metaverse that he drops hints at (which is why the Stormlight Archive is soooo appealing to existing fans, since it touches on that directly).
I can see where that structure leads to predictability as others have mentioned, but I think he deserves credit for it. His books and Jim Butcher's books have been my favorite bus-reading material for years because they are comfortable, solid worlds with entertaining characters that are easy to read but still have depth to them. I also think both are amazingly consistent in spitting out "good" books at a minimum. I haven't read any other author that has put out that much material without some serious lemons mixed in (Robert Jordan included).
We'll see how long that lasts of course...
0
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
Why does Gabe have buck teeth?
0
Options
MichaelLCIn what furnace was thy brain?ChicagoRegistered Userregular
I also find that I know how a lot of words are spelled but not how they're properly pronounced and assume that's from too much reading and not enough talking.
Very much me as well. Pronunciation is pretty terrible actually - Mexican menus, cheese and wine names give me the fits. Fuck you Sangiovese.
I always liked Jerry's explanation that he just knows what word belongs there.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I guess my thing is I like to make fun of things, and I like to have things I like made fun of, I just hope it's being done in good spirits. Usually it's clear that PA is making fun of something in good spirits, because they are poking fun at things they like. This time I just didn't get that vibe. I felt like they were making fun of something they don't like, and the people that like it, which just feels mean to me.
The thing to keep in mind is that language like "...you read one or two pages and then threw up..." is not excpetional for Penny-Arcade. That's about as mild as an expression of disapproval will ever be. It's never "it's bad" when it could be "...you read one or two pages and then threw up..." and it's never "You're mean and that's inappropriate," when "Listen up Satan... go drink some bad poison and shit out your life." will do.
my preferred hyperbolic PAism is "go fuck the Devil in Hell"
When someone really hates something you like, but you don't care, but they really want you to care that they don't like the thing you like...and you just sit there...slowly dying.
From today's, well now yesterday's, post:
Brandon Sanderson has an aggressive contingent in the office, a “posse-equivalent” activist body
And yeah it really is the worst. So I could wholly understand Tycho's strong dislike of the books even if it originally was a mild disinterest.
Well then I have a problem with his communication delivery as a whole. It's fine if he writes the way he speaks, and kudos to him for maintaining consistency, but I can still dislike the style. The comics are (typically) great and I enjoy their work; I went to PAX, etc. But I don't think I would get through more than a few pages of a book written in the style of his blog posts.
I remember one of the podcasts from the original season when Jerry used an exotic word that Mike questioned him about. He couldn't come up with a definition but knew that it somehow fit his meaning. They looked it up and it fit perfectly. It was really odd. My brain had a hard time rationalizing how someone else's brain could know how to use a word in a sentence without actually knowing it's meaning.
I can't speak for Jerry, but I've done this many times and it comes from a combination of reading a lot, and having a firm enough grasp of English (or your language of choice) to understand the word in context when you hear/read it for the first time that you can extrapolate other times it might be appropriate to use. That, and being too lazy to actually go look up the definition of said word. I'm far less lazy about this now since most of my reading is done on one device or another capable of immediately defining unfamiliar words.
I don't think I want to live in a world where PA's literary tastes are considered "snobby". I mean, most of the books they tend to talk about tend to be fantasy/sci-fi!
(Not to disparage either genre but normally the literature snob cliche is that they turn their nose at those genres, no?)
I'm pretty sure the news post for that showed that his criteria for books back then was sci-fi books with planets or spaceships on the cover, or with Star Wars in the title!
That news post was literally the reason I wouldn't touch an Alastair Reynolds book for years. His framing them as "almost as good as Star Wars Expanded Universe novels" made me assume they were garbage.
Hmm i sorta feel Sanderson and Rothfuss are comparable only Sanderson writes much more prolifically, and decided to publish his middle school scribbling which his agent or himself knew from the get go was a bad idea, but his continued sales figures have now allowed him to do.
Rothfuss writes a generic world with a Mary Sue MC, and has to justify his characters actions by saying he knows its illogical but its what happened, we end up with someone no one can identify with unless they Thor.
In Sanderson's "Warbreaker" I as a man identified more with the female MC's then I ever could with Kvothe.
Rothfuss is clearly the better writer from a literary standpoint, but Avengers made more money than last years pulitzer prize winner, and I would bet more smiles too.
Thank goodness I live in a part of the world where just because someone who's nerd famous (but I still respect) dislikes something I like I don't have to care.
Have you ever read the comic before? The forum's post character limit couldn't handle it if I tried to post every comic where they made fun of something specific (usually a game). That's kinda what they do. Just because this particular one was pointed at something you happen to like doesn't make it some tectonic shift in the tone of PA's comics.
True, but usually when Tycho critiques something he has a clear and concise reason of WHY. And that's the problem here. I could have understood Tycho's opinion better if the first panel gave better critique than just "stupid" and "vomit inducing."
Sanderson makes detailed worlds with detailed magic systems. So does Rothfuss. He likes Rothfuss but apparently not Sanderson, which is confusing.
Does he think that Sanderson's work is hard to read because of word structure or incoherency, or difficulty to understand due to unclear wording? Did he not like the plot, the pacing, the characters, or the story?
I'm sure Tycho's post will make everything clearer later... hopefully.
As being a guy who read Rothfuss, but doesn't like it as much as everybody else does . . . I've read Rothfuss critiques that are equally generic.
It doesn't matter if the book is good or bad, praise almost invariably takes the form of, "it had a cool magic system" or it's "amongst literary greats like Tolkien and Rowling" or a generic throwaway line about "worldbuilding."
I've heard Rothfuss magic being unironically compared to quantum mechanics crossed with voodoo, with the tone of the reviewer making it sound like we should be concerned with the magic system like it were some sort of playable video game mechanic or something.
Put simply, the praise fantasy literature gets is insipid as fuck. It doesn't matter whether it's good or bad because there's simply a level of commentary that nobody ever transcends because books are mainly business and all the buzz around it is part of the publishing hype train. Many fans simply don't have the self-awareness to realize this.
I'm honestly surprised you don't like Sanderson though. Reading Sanderson I saw very little difference in reading Rothfuss. Both build worlds that have their own ebb and flow with magic systems that have rules and flaws. Maybe that just means that I have absolutely no idea how to tell the difference between good fiction and bad fiction. But is that really a bad thing?
Rothfuss has "bad" writing, but not for the general reasons thrown at him. It's "bad" because he breaks common conventions. He introduces elements to his world because he believes it should exist regardless of the main character. There are guns on the wall not because they will go off, but because some people like guns. He introduces inconsistencies and complexities even though he never intends to sort them out, and his characters will never know if one version is fact or none of them are. His main character verges on being a sociopath to the view of modern readers because his culture, his experience, and his world are very different from the norm but this isn't always reconciled in the narrative and even in his own narrative he could be seen as deranged.
This is bad writing, and quite frankly if he wasn't so damn freaking good at making it work it'd be panned almost universally.
There's an element to craft in a work of writing. Some writers have it, some are still developing it. Having similar themes isn't enough to make two books comparable in craft.
I'm honestly surprised you don't like Sanderson though. Reading Sanderson I saw very little difference in reading Rothfuss. Both build worlds that have their own ebb and flow with magic systems that have rules and flaws. Maybe that just means that I have absolutely no idea how to tell the difference between good fiction and bad fiction. But is that really a bad thing?
Rothfuss has "bad" writing, but not for the general reasons thrown at him. It's "bad" because he breaks common conventions. He introduces elements to his world because he believes it should exist regardless of the main character. There are guns on the wall not because they will go off, but because some people like guns. He introduces inconsistencies and complexities even though he never intends to sort them out, and his characters will never know if one version is fact or none of them are. His main character verges on being a sociopath to the view of modern readers because his culture, his experience, and his world are very different from the norm but this isn't always reconciled in the narrative and even in his own narrative he could be seen as deranged.
This is bad writing, and quite frankly if he wasn't so damn freaking good at making it work it'd be panned almost universally.
There's an element to craft in a work of writing. Some writers have it, some are still developing it. Having similar themes isn't enough to make two books comparable in craft.
This post is like saying "I work too hard" when you get asked what your biggest weakness is during a job interview.
I'm honestly surprised you don't like Sanderson though. Reading Sanderson I saw very little difference in reading Rothfuss. Both build worlds that have their own ebb and flow with magic systems that have rules and flaws. Maybe that just means that I have absolutely no idea how to tell the difference between good fiction and bad fiction. But is that really a bad thing?
Rothfuss has "bad" writing, but not for the general reasons thrown at him. It's "bad" because he breaks common conventions. He introduces elements to his world because he believes it should exist regardless of the main character. There are guns on the wall not because they will go off, but because some people like guns. He introduces inconsistencies and complexities even though he never intends to sort them out, and his characters will never know if one version is fact or none of them are. His main character verges on being a sociopath to the view of modern readers because his culture, his experience, and his world are very different from the norm but this isn't always reconciled in the narrative and even in his own narrative he could be seen as deranged.
This is bad writing, and quite frankly if he wasn't so damn freaking good at making it work it'd be panned almost universally.
There's an element to craft in a work of writing. Some writers have it, some are still developing it. Having similar themes isn't enough to make two books comparable in craft.
This post is like saying "I work too hard" when you get asked what your biggest weakness is during a job interview.
That's a fair comment.
But also something that doesn't necessarily apply. If you looked at other authors, some of them wrote several books before getting published or making it big and many may never make it big. Jim Butcher wrote several novels that he refuses to submit for publishing they were so bad. George R.R. Martin wrote several novels that have never sold particularly well (and wrote for several TV shows that aren't particularly widely remembered). Rothfuss's first step into professional writing was to win an award and hit gold.
It's more like saying "Stuff just seems to work for me" at an interview, and probably still getting the job.
I'm honestly surprised you don't like Sanderson though. Reading Sanderson I saw very little difference in reading Rothfuss. Both build worlds that have their own ebb and flow with magic systems that have rules and flaws. Maybe that just means that I have absolutely no idea how to tell the difference between good fiction and bad fiction. But is that really a bad thing?
Rothfuss has "bad" writing, but not for the general reasons thrown at him. It's "bad" because he breaks common conventions. He introduces elements to his world because he believes it should exist regardless of the main character. There are guns on the wall not because they will go off, but because some people like guns. He introduces inconsistencies and complexities even though he never intends to sort them out, and his characters will never know if one version is fact or none of them are. His main character verges on being a sociopath to the view of modern readers because his culture, his experience, and his world are very different from the norm but this isn't always reconciled in the narrative and even in his own narrative he could be seen as deranged.
This is bad writing, and quite frankly if he wasn't so damn freaking good at making it work it'd be panned almost universally.
There's an element to craft in a work of writing. Some writers have it, some are still developing it. Having similar themes isn't enough to make two books comparable in craft.
This post is like saying "I work too hard" when you get asked what your biggest weakness is during a job interview.
Not quite. Writing does not work that way. Writing effectively does not necessarily mean writing more.
Knowing when to shut up is just as important as knowing what to put down.
Did Kvothe ever really fail at anything? Everything that happened seemed to be him accomplishing some feat that had never been done before or just plain being better than everyone else. I'm all for my heroes being exceptional but it should never be that easy and they should have some serious weaknesses and failures. I have yet to start Wise Man's Fear but even the blurb on the back of that seems to continue the trend, essentially just saying, "Kvothe does this impossible thing and then this impossible thing and then this thing that everyone thought was super impossible and nobody had ever survived an attempt at but Kvothe does while half-asleep!" Say what you will about Sanderson but at least his characters screw up and feel like actual people and the world and magic are well defined and thought out.
There's no way it's any longer relevant to reply to this, and I'm on my phone and don't know if someone already did well but I just gotta say: What book are you reading? Kvothe fails and has a ridiculous number of insurmountable challenges thrown at him on a regular basis. Three major ones (sort of spoilers) : the fight at the end of Book 1, being banished from the city by the mayor's wife in book 2, and being banned from the library. He ends up in crazy bad situations because he's an asshole regularly, and he has to take many different tactics to solve problems often. Does the protagonist ultimately sort of succeed? Sure. He also goes through really terrible, gut-wrenching stuff to get there, and more often than not by the skin of his teeth.
BRO LET ME GET REAL WITH YOU AND SAY THAT MY FINGERS ARE PREPPED AND HOT LIKE THE SURFACE OF THE SUN TO BRING RADICAL BEATS SO SMOOTH THE SHIT WILL BE MEDICINAL-GRADE TRIPNASTY MAKING ALL BRAINWAVES ROLL ON THE SURFACE OF A BALLS-FEISTY NEURAL RAINBOW CRACKA-LACKIN' YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE HERE-NOW SPACE-TIME SITUATION THAT ALL OF LIFE BE JAMMED UP IN THROUGH THE UNIVERSAL FLOW BEATS
I'm honestly surprised you don't like Sanderson though. Reading Sanderson I saw very little difference in reading Rothfuss. Both build worlds that have their own ebb and flow with magic systems that have rules and flaws. Maybe that just means that I have absolutely no idea how to tell the difference between good fiction and bad fiction. But is that really a bad thing?
Rothfuss has "bad" writing, but not for the general reasons thrown at him. It's "bad" because he breaks common conventions. He introduces elements to his world because he believes it should exist regardless of the main character. There are guns on the wall not because they will go off, but because some people like guns. He introduces inconsistencies and complexities even though he never intends to sort them out, and his characters will never know if one version is fact or none of them are. His main character verges on being a sociopath to the view of modern readers because his culture, his experience, and his world are very different from the norm but this isn't always reconciled in the narrative and even in his own narrative he could be seen as deranged.
This is bad writing, and quite frankly if he wasn't so damn freaking good at making it work it'd be panned almost universally.
There's an element to craft in a work of writing. Some writers have it, some are still developing it. Having similar themes isn't enough to make two books comparable in craft.
This post is like saying "I work too hard" when you get asked what your biggest weakness is during a job interview.
Not quite. Writing does not work that way. Writing effectively does not necessarily mean writing more.
Knowing when to shut up is just as important as knowing what to put down.
That's true, but completely irrelevant, since my point was about claiming awesomeness under the false pretense of describing a weakness.
I got to ask, what did I say that made you think I was "Accusing the PA guys of lying to my face before going on to tell them to never use something as the butt of a joke again". If you could tell me then I could better clarify what I originally meant. I want specific quotes and examples in order to avoid confusion on my part.
Learn from the experience, but don't be too hard on yourself. Most of us can write a book on terrible ways we've behaved on the Internet. I think I'd have a chapter just for the past half year on this forum even.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
I'm a fan of Sanderson. I enjoy his world-building, his characters, and his plots.
I'm not a fan of Rothfuss at all. I dislike his writing style and I don't enjoy his characters.
I'm not upset. Opinions, assholes, etc.
On a related note, Sanderson's Steelheart certainly isn't the best book I've read this year (it even falls behind The Eternity Cure in terms of best Young Adult novel that I've read this year), but it's the one whose next instalment I'm most looking forward to.
Shadowhope on
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Posts
I'm pretty sure the news post for that showed that his criteria for books back then was sci-fi books with planets or spaceships on the cover, or with Star Wars in the title!
I do this constantly. It's a joke between my dad and I. He tells me that I must score points for every superfluous syllable in a sentence, (Although he probably doesn't use the word superfluous.) and I tell him he doesn't know any words over 2 syllables. (Both are, of course, good spirited exaggerations.) When I use a big word he doesn't know, he often asks me what it means and makes fun of me for having to look it up. Usually I used it properly, I just didn't know how to define it for him easily.
It's like if you were describing something blue but then someone stopped you and asked you what blue is. You know what blue is, but how do you describe it? Blue is blue. It's just that moment where you thought you picked the words that best fit what you are trying to say, and someone asks you to pick new ones on the spot. Plus, I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm asked to define something I get suddenly self conscious and feel better about looking it up to make sure I used it right. The word comes naturally, but once it's questioned and I'm asked to be an authority on what the word means, I want to be sure.
Also, I do think it comes from reading a lot and picking up words through context. I love to read and I love to write, so I devour words.
Well, I guess I just figured because of how over-the-top the first panel is that it was tongue-in-cheek on the part of Mike and Jerry, and actually now that I read the news post and see it's because of inter-office difference of opinions on his work I definitely think that it is. I do always tell my kids not to use language like that when talking about opinions, that they should always say "I thought this was bad" or just "I didn't like it" rather than saying "this is bad." Maybe the internet needs parents to remind them of these things.
People will go on and on sometimes about why they don't like something. I guess it works both ways in that people who don't like things need everyone to NOT like what they like otherwise they feel defensive? Maybe they figure they're missing something everyone else is getting and that makes them self conscious deep down?
For myself I actually do itch to sometimes tell people about how I felt about the Dresden Files in more detail, but in that case I think I'm looking for absolution, that it's okay to not like it.
Wii: 4521 1146 5179 1333 Pearl: 3394 4642 8367 HG: 1849 3913 3132
You're damn right I'm a monster. Here's another one. Do you know what a meme is? It's just a running gag/inside joke on the internet. There, I've removed the magic from that one too! (inane and pathetic diabolical laughter) I'm the ultimate twatwad here to remove all enjoyment from the internet. EVER.
Point taken. I kind of regretted the word snobby as soon as I used it, but I felt it fit enough to leave it alone. I don't know, it's probably not fair. Being that PA is a comedy comic, I suppose one would expect most of the references to literature to be making fun of the target. I remember a comic about Gabe trying to listen to a Star Wars book and it being to terrible to listen to, there was the one someone linked about wanting to punch a guy for being overly verbose (the irony has been pointed out, there was the direct slam on the authors that took over Dune... Like I said, the only time I can call to mind them referencing a book without implying it was terrible was The Name of The Wind.
Most of the time, the drive of the insult is the typical sort of thing slung by literature snobs. Slights on the craft and content of genre fiction.
I guess my thing is I like to make fun of things, and I like to have things I like made fun of, I just hope it's being done in good spirits. Usually it's clear that PA is making fun of something in good spirits, because they are poking fun at things they like. This time I just didn't get that vibe. I felt like they were making fun of something they don't like, and the people that like it, which just feels mean to me.
No, it sort of works as a joke, but not as a serious critique. Sanderson actually does engage in building new worlds and detailed magic systems on a scale that most fantasy authors do not. It is a true thing about his writing that is different from most other fantasy authors, and the fact that the thing would be simple to memorize and repeat does not make it less true. You couldn't insert just any other name in there and have it work
It is also not what I would say is the most defining trait of his writing, but maybe most people would disagree with me there, or else those tips wouldn't be much good.
That was such a weird project though that it's probably not the best window into the rest of his work?
Yeah. I just feel like I was like everyone else in school, making fun of pop bands and such for having no talent, feeling superior to anyone who likes such stupid things, etc.. Then I started to develop my own taste and realized not everything I liked was popular. I realized how bad it felt to have people actually look down on you and act as if you must be defective because you like something. That spurred me on to realizing just how subjective taste is, and that if you don't like something you won't appreciate it's nuances the way a fan does.
Then, I go on the internet, and it's like the rest of the world skipped that stage in their development. Instead of realizing that their own tastes aren't tools for objective analysis, they just seem to think they have the line on what qualifies as good, and anyone who disagrees is just stupid or defective.
It just seems lost on the majority that "I dislike this," and "This is bad," aren't the same even though it can feel this way. I get that if you don't like something that you're going to have a bad time with it, and it can be tempting to see that as "Yuck, that was bad." But that isn't a mature or rational way to see the world.
As for Dresden, I love Dresden and I love literature. I'll talk about it all day with someone who will give me the chance. If you wanted to send me a PM to talk about it, I can take it. I'm sure it has plenty of flaws. I doubt I'll be able to say anything to help you like it better, but maybe I can let you know if the things you dislike get better later on, or if you feel like you want to like it but just don't, maybe I can recommend something similar that you might like more. I read a lot of stuff in that specific genre.
The thing to keep in mind is that language like "...you read one or two pages and then threw up..." is not excpetional for Penny-Arcade. That's about as mild as an expression of disapproval will ever be. It's never "it's bad" when it could be "...you read one or two pages and then threw up..." and it's never "You're mean and that's inappropriate," when "Listen up Satan... go drink some bad poison and shit out your life." will do.
I'm working through Wheel of Time again, revitalized by the knowledge the last few books were written by someone who knows what he's doing. I always wanted to know how that story ended, but I'd given up hope Robert Jordan would ever finish it long before I heard he was sick.
Anyway, I haven't gotten to the Sanderson books in the series yet, but... most of his stuff is pretty thematically different from the Wheel of Time. Except for The Way of Kings, where he comes pretty close to telling a standard fantasy story, and uses a fairly large number of characters.
Iunno, I think on the internet people say "This is bad" instead of "In my opinion, this is bad" because when you're giving your thoughts on something that's subjective it's assumed that you're giving your opinion instead of stating an objective fact (heck I'd argue this applies in general, not just on the internet). It's a bit redundant and in this fast paced internet culture we live in, redundancy tends to be mercilessly slaughtered. Plus when most people call something bad I think it's a bit hasty to assume that they mean the people that like it are bad too (unless they outright say it, of course. At which case feel free to fire away).
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
It was pretty okay.
That said I honestly hate arguments when it comes to personal taste. Because its either boils down to "You're dumb for liking this thing." that goes nowhere or someone gives you a long drawn out explanation for why you're dumb for liking this thing.
And really this is pretty much how every single one of those arguments end.
Books at dawn. Bludgeon each other until only the One True Literature remains.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
When someone really hates something you like, but you don't care, but they really want you to care that they don't like the thing you like...and you just sit there...slowly dying.
You called it.
This is the one thing that kind of bugs me about the comic. I appreciate where it's coming from, but being a good world-builder isn't just a vague compliment - it's important to fantasy and is something very few writers are actually good at. Sanderson definitely is up there in that department, and I think that's part of the appeal of his writing to engineers and geeks - everything fits, and there's a fair amount you can dissect - though there are still mysteries to his metaverse that he drops hints at (which is why the Stormlight Archive is soooo appealing to existing fans, since it touches on that directly).
I can see where that structure leads to predictability as others have mentioned, but I think he deserves credit for it. His books and Jim Butcher's books have been my favorite bus-reading material for years because they are comfortable, solid worlds with entertaining characters that are easy to read but still have depth to them. I also think both are amazingly consistent in spitting out "good" books at a minimum. I haven't read any other author that has put out that much material without some serious lemons mixed in (Robert Jordan included).
We'll see how long that lasts of course...
Very much me as well. Pronunciation is pretty terrible actually - Mexican menus, cheese and wine names give me the fits. Fuck you Sangiovese.
I always liked Jerry's explanation that he just knows what word belongs there.
my preferred hyperbolic PAism is "go fuck the Devil in Hell"
From today's, well now yesterday's, post:
And yeah it really is the worst. So I could wholly understand Tycho's strong dislike of the books even if it originally was a mild disinterest.
I can't speak for Jerry, but I've done this many times and it comes from a combination of reading a lot, and having a firm enough grasp of English (or your language of choice) to understand the word in context when you hear/read it for the first time that you can extrapolate other times it might be appropriate to use. That, and being too lazy to actually go look up the definition of said word. I'm far less lazy about this now since most of my reading is done on one device or another capable of immediately defining unfamiliar words.
Rothfuss writes a generic world with a Mary Sue MC, and has to justify his characters actions by saying he knows its illogical but its what happened, we end up with someone no one can identify with unless they Thor.
In Sanderson's "Warbreaker" I as a man identified more with the female MC's then I ever could with Kvothe.
Rothfuss is clearly the better writer from a literary standpoint, but Avengers made more money than last years pulitzer prize winner, and I would bet more smiles too.
Just my opinions
As being a guy who read Rothfuss, but doesn't like it as much as everybody else does . . . I've read Rothfuss critiques that are equally generic.
It doesn't matter if the book is good or bad, praise almost invariably takes the form of, "it had a cool magic system" or it's "amongst literary greats like Tolkien and Rowling" or a generic throwaway line about "worldbuilding."
I've heard Rothfuss magic being unironically compared to quantum mechanics crossed with voodoo, with the tone of the reviewer making it sound like we should be concerned with the magic system like it were some sort of playable video game mechanic or something.
Put simply, the praise fantasy literature gets is insipid as fuck. It doesn't matter whether it's good or bad because there's simply a level of commentary that nobody ever transcends because books are mainly business and all the buzz around it is part of the publishing hype train. Many fans simply don't have the self-awareness to realize this.
Rothfuss has "bad" writing, but not for the general reasons thrown at him. It's "bad" because he breaks common conventions. He introduces elements to his world because he believes it should exist regardless of the main character. There are guns on the wall not because they will go off, but because some people like guns. He introduces inconsistencies and complexities even though he never intends to sort them out, and his characters will never know if one version is fact or none of them are. His main character verges on being a sociopath to the view of modern readers because his culture, his experience, and his world are very different from the norm but this isn't always reconciled in the narrative and even in his own narrative he could be seen as deranged.
This is bad writing, and quite frankly if he wasn't so damn freaking good at making it work it'd be panned almost universally.
There's an element to craft in a work of writing. Some writers have it, some are still developing it. Having similar themes isn't enough to make two books comparable in craft.
This post is like saying "I work too hard" when you get asked what your biggest weakness is during a job interview.
That's a fair comment.
But also something that doesn't necessarily apply. If you looked at other authors, some of them wrote several books before getting published or making it big and many may never make it big. Jim Butcher wrote several novels that he refuses to submit for publishing they were so bad. George R.R. Martin wrote several novels that have never sold particularly well (and wrote for several TV shows that aren't particularly widely remembered). Rothfuss's first step into professional writing was to win an award and hit gold.
It's more like saying "Stuff just seems to work for me" at an interview, and probably still getting the job.
Not quite. Writing does not work that way. Writing effectively does not necessarily mean writing more.
Knowing when to shut up is just as important as knowing what to put down.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
That's true, but completely irrelevant, since my point was about claiming awesomeness under the false pretense of describing a weakness.
and not just because he worked for Nintendo
... God damn I hate myself for being a stupid fucking idiot...
(note to self, never talk on the internet again.)
I'm not a fan of Rothfuss at all. I dislike his writing style and I don't enjoy his characters.
I'm not upset. Opinions, assholes, etc.
On a related note, Sanderson's Steelheart certainly isn't the best book I've read this year (it even falls behind The Eternity Cure in terms of best Young Adult novel that I've read this year), but it's the one whose next instalment I'm most looking forward to.