/lit/ - Literature

>>18091292
I agree, not even on their books but just on them as an author. Sanderson is a cool guy (even if what he writes is... not that great) but Rothfuss is a pretentious twat and deserves to be forgotten

>>18091304
It's very interesting that you bring up Nabokov, and you definitely have a point. This essay is from his Lectures on Literature book, and its where he first introduces the ideas of what makes 'good readers' and 'bad readers'
>http://www.en.utexas.edu/amlit/amlitprivate/scans/goodre.html
Something interesting to note (that I only picked up on after reading this several times–Nabby is one of those authors that needs several readings to really wring out what he's saying) is that, he doesn't condemn 'emotional reading' (reading with 'your heart instead of your mind' more or less; reading and holding a book in high regard because it evokes memories or nostalgia or you relate to the characters). He's just saying that an 'emotional connection' isn't the only reason a person should hold a book in high regard. He says that an author is three things: a storyteller (who provides entertainment, excitement, and emotional participation), a teacher (who provides a moral, or direct facts and knowledge), and an enchanter (who provides 'magic'), and he says that an author needs all three to be great, but first and foremost, an author needs to be an 'enchanter' to become truly transcendent ("If the enchanter leaves and the storyteller and the moralist (the teacher) remain alone, they make poor company.")

The reason I'm even bringing this up is because this is very applicable to the state of fantasy literature today. A majority of readers are "bad readers"–using this video and the response to Bakker as an example, the readers complain and denounce his books because there is no emotional 'hook' for them; they must be emotionally invested in a book before they can praise it, ignoring other elements such as the structure and the author's style in their considerations.

At the same time, a majority of fantasy authors currently working are simply good 'Storytellers'–they provide the three E's (excitement, entertainment, and emotions) in spades, but as far as morals or direct knowledge goes, they provide little (if they do it at all), and as 'enchanters' there seems to be virtually none. Of course, 'writer-as-enchanter' is a bit harder to define but Nabokov does expand on all three roles later on in his lectures (I'm currently going through his book again and reformatting my notes, which I'd be happy to discuss if anybody was interested), but I feel like this is an issue we can really talk about since it affects both fantasy writers and fantasy readers. What are you guys' thoughts?