/lit/ - Literature

I'm interested in reading Patrick Rothfuss.

Have you read A Song of Ice and Fire? If so, someone who enjoyed GRRM would enjoy Rothfuss?

Get this neckbeard shit off /lit/.

>>2562574

I'm afraid I have not read that series yet. From what I have gathered, it's not really different from any other fantasy series.

That being said, I will probably take a look at it after finishing Grand Strategies - Charles Hill, as the references I have to look into for it are time-consuming.

>>2562588

You should, it's quite entertaining. It's probably a little different from The Kingkiller Chronicles, since this one is heroic fantasy, and A Song of Ice and Fire is high fantasy.

If you want something different try The Second Apocalypse series by R. Scott Bakker

Riddled with philosophy and questionable protagonists.

extreme mary sue/harry potter shit, if you think kingkiller is great you have shit taste or don't read much even within the genre

>>2562610
I have read Tolkien (Shitty catholic-mongering mongloid), Salvatore (Shit writer), just about any mainstream fantasy you can think of (mostly shit), and just about every long fantasy series. (Wheel of time and Sword of Truth. Also shitty.)

In all honesty, most works have disappointed me, but your comment tells me that you haven't read the book at all.

>>2562606

I'll look into it.

>>2562621

>that feel when I related to Lirael because she goes to commit suicide in the first half of the book

>>2562624
>I have read Tolkien (Shitty catholic-mongering mongloid), Salvatore (Shit writer), just about any mainstream fantasy you can think of (mostly shit), and just about every long fantasy series. (Wheel of time and Sword of Truth. Also shitty.)

So what you're saying is that you haven't read much fantasy.

I've read it

>>2562574
no, go read Joe Abercrombie's First Law series, it's definitely what you want to read if you like ASOIAF


Rothfuss is so fucking overrated it's not even funny, the book is his COLLEGE LIFE FANTASIES, I SHIT YOU NOT

there's this briiiiilliant boy, his parents get killed, and guess what, the briiiiliant boy survives years of being a street urchin with no money or training, AND DAZZLES HIS WAY THROUGH COLLEGE, where he
a. saves a hot girl in the chemistry lab
b. kills a vegetarian dragon (so edgy)

that, gentlemen, is the first book

he should be sued for false advertising, "Kingkiller Chronicles" is ridiculously deluding title

>>2562610
is actually correct
>>2562621
is a good recommendation

Name of the Wind is not a book I hate, it's just super overrated. He gets lost into the details, and doesn't deliver a properly paced story.


OP by your post YOU don't read much fantasy
Please, don't take offense though and read The First Law trilogy

>>2562630
All fantasy is a different flavor of the same icecream, buddy. If I wanted to read a book worth bragging about, I would not be asking for advice about fantasy novels.

>>2562637
>this entire post

oh so you're reading it for bragging rights, because it's "different" from other known books, you probably think everything else is LOTR stuff and with magic used by the author to get away without writing

kindly fuck off e/lit/ist


people read fantasy for the stories, and name of the wind isn't a good story

>>2562635
yep

>>2562637
I'm not saying you should be bragging about it. I'm just saying that your opinion on Kingkiller Chronicles is the opinion of someone who has not read much fantasy that's not Tolkienate post-Sword of Shannara epic fantasy or D&Dfic.

>>2562641

Not quite. I'm reading it because, when I read fantasy, I look for entertainment value, and typical fantasy with mass testosterone-flinging battles do not interest me.

>>2562649
>typical fantasy with mass testosterone-flinging battles do not interest me

stop reading pulp then?
oh and another recommendation, Way of Kings and everything else by Sanderson, The alloy of law (preferably after reading mistborn) is a very cool book where you get guns mixed with magic systems, but this author writes about great characters in original and interesting worlds, where the magic isn't simply there, is changes social structures, way of living, etc.

>>2562576
>/lit/
>not neckbeard

>>2562684
not him but my image of the typical c/lit/ is an angsty teen since the board is flooded with pretentious douchebags that make threads about how they're writing a novel (makes me laugh for the most part, until you see how they scoff at successfull, real authors)

>>2562576
>Implying that neckbeard's read shit like this.
Rothfuss is a annoying dickweed. He's just like Martin. His book covers, his writing and the name of the series sucks. I haven't even read it!

I just know that it's pop-culture shit. It screams of new age bullshit.

>>2562692
Patrick Rothfuss is literally a neckbeard

>>2562699
So? My point is that most neckbeards I've encountered at least have some sort of standard. The Black Company, for instance. I'm not a neckbeard and I don't read that much fantasy, but I know that TBC isn't that bad compared to this shit.

>>2562706
The tainted crown of your distended blighted cock squishes flat against her twat, too big for her prodigious demon-cunt to swallow. Spurred by frustrated desires, you lift her legs and wrap her girlcum-slicked thighs about your nubby shaft. Ceraph’s smooth skin and soft thigh-flesh form a comfortably tight masturbation tube. Starting slowly, you begin rocking back and forth, sawing your prodigious cock-flesh over her body. The demoness swivels her hips underneath your corrupted cock, her slippery gash and near-crushed member feverishly rubbing into you. Though you didn't get to truly violate her, her thighs and unblemished skin are more than good enough to bring you to the brink of orgasm.The defeated omnibus wraps her arms around your demon-dick and whines lustily, “No, please! You'll cover me in seed and despoil my face! Please don't glaze me in that awful stuff!”

You grunt, hold the captive by her ankles, and use her like a disposable sex-toy. The slap of your plain thighs slapping into her thighs echoes loudly, nearly drowning out the wet squishing of your over-sized perverse pecker with each violent brush against her cuntlips. Your over-sized demon-dick slides over her face with every stroke, smearing the demon's hair with your thick pre-seed before you pull back and dribble it on her face. The pleasure of the act is incredible, and you feel yourself getting harder as the sensation nears orgasmic levels.

I enjoyed it, and I'll buy the next book. I look forward to seeing how it'll wrap up.

That said, I'm not about to boast it as a shining example of fantasy literature. The book itself is well-written in terms of articulacy, but parts read like a circa-1995 fanfiction.

The main reason I enjoyed Rothfuss is the character progression and interesting way magic works in the world. Calling a mentally disturbed individual who survives through willpower and trickery a mary sue is absurd.

That being said, I lost a lot of respect for the guy when his second novel clearly stated himself as a male feminist. (Feminism is fucking retarded on all levels)

>>2562708
Is this from TBC? I haven't even read that, either. As I said I don't read much fantasy, but have heard many good things about Glen Cook.

>>2562723
Never mind. I actually read the post instead of skimming over it. What is that from, really, a choose your own adventure book?

While I wouldn't recommend his works, Rothfuss reminds me of Brent Weeks in a couple of ways. Both of their works include interesting magic systems but neither appeals to me for some reason or another.

>>2562721
Your post is fucking retarded on all levels. Kvothe is completely a wish-fulfillment Mary Sue, and feminism is a perfectly fine point of view in itself.

>>2562728
Agreed.

>>2562728

Feminists are some of the worst, self-entitled scum this world has ever seen. If you are a male and follow that garbage, you are either a deluded right-wing white knight or a left-wing mangina.

>>2562734
>fighting for equal treatment, equal respect, and equal dignity for literally one half of the human race
>self-entitled

wow you really are an idiot

>>2562734

>SWEEPING GENERALISATIONS

Feminism is a fine belief, and a cornerstone of modern values. Thinking that either gender is superior is ridic- Oh. OH.

There goes the thread.

>>2562742
I'm not even to guy to whom you were originally speaking, but you're an idiot. And he's correct.

>>2562728
>and feminism is a perfectly fine point of view in itself.

lol, fuck off.

>>2562743
hurr because feminism means "equality".... retard.

>>2562743
It's okay it was a shitty thread anyway.

>>2562748
please demonstrate for me how feminism, a belief that in the equality of the sexes, is necessarily "self-entitled". it almost looks like you're launching an ad hominem attack at feminists themselves for being "self-entitled", but of course that's a ridiculous argument that only a completely absurd, idiotic, misogynistic ass would make, so i look forward to seeing what you really think.

>>2562757
Well, as I'm sure you realize, being a reasonable person, feminism means many things and there are many varieties of feminism. True, for some of those varieties feminism does not mean equality, but that's not true of all of them

>>2562742

And you are out of your mind. Modern feminists having been tipping the balance in their favor for a few generations now.

Let me make this really quick for you: The pay gap is not real, and the statistics are biased. Feminism these days is an excuse for self-entitled women who wish for the same benefits for less work. Men have less rights in women in the current judicial system. Even going along with the current propoganda, 'maleness' is not favored.

inb4 edgy
inb4 3rd world oppression
inb4 ad hominems and disregard for evolutionary psychology

>>2562774
The faerie reaches your swollen member and climbs atop your perverse pecker, hanging on to the corrupted nubs and nodules as she threads her legs between them, squeezing you tightly as she hangs on. You can feel her wet gash sitting atop a particularly sensitive bump, teasing you with a tiny cunt you'll never be able to penetrate. Your internal muscles clench unconsciously, squeezing out a dollop of pre that rolls down into the faerie's hair, soaking her head and face. You can't see her reaction, but you can feel it oozing between her body and you, lubricating her as she humps and rubs against you. Tiny muffled moans escape your full platemail, indicating that some part of her is enjoying the task.

Though she can only stimulate a few inches of you at a time, it feels really good – better than it should, and a budding warmth on the edge of release builds inside you. Too late you realize you should have gotten at least partially undressed. You cum before you can do anything about it, splattering your full platemail with seed and leaving a wet patch on the crotch. You can feel it dripping back onto you and the faerie as more spunk squirts out, soaking the tiny girl in spooge as the wet spot grows. You cum uncontrollably, regretting your fertility as your body paints the inside of your full platemail with goopy whiteness. Falling backwards as your legs give out, you watch your wet groin squirm as the faerie finishes releasing your built-up tension and crawls out. She's covered from head to toe in sloppy white jism, and is noisily slurping it up.

>>2562774
>And you are out of your mind. Modern feminists having been tipping the balance in their favor for a few generations now.

Okay good I'm glad you acknowledge that feminism as such isn't a problematic, that only modern feminism is. That's a good place to start! Already this is a much more reasonable claim (although still wrong).

>Let me make this really quick for you: The pay gap is not real, and the statistics are biased. Feminism these days is an excuse for self-entitled women who wish for the same benefits for less work. Men have less rights in women in the current judicial system. Even going along with the current propoganda, 'maleness' is not favored.

I agree with many things you are saying here! Truly, the patriarchal system of gender roles is deeply flawed and harmful to men and women, and we should all fight to make it more equitable and just. Thankfully this is precisely what modern feminism - or at least a significant portion of modern feminism - is doing. Being a feminist is not necessarily opposed to addressing problems about eg gender in the courts, alimony, custody of children being favorable to women, or problems about education of males. There's no incompatibility there. And feminism is not only "women who want more money for less work", that's a bizarre insult. Feminism is an endeavor of people who are troubled by the same kind of things that you are (although usually on the opposite side). It's not just about the wage gap, it's about things like images of women in media, reproductive rights, etc.

Now, if you're committed to an evopsych point of view and believe that men are naturally superior to women, that is pretty incompatible with feminism (and also you should fuck right off). I'm just pointing out that feminism is not intrinsically anti-man. It's not a competition, it's about remedying injustice.

From gay to Rothfuss to gay feminism.

>>2562782

Alright, I will admit that I should have clarified the 'modern' feminism. The thought-process was coming from the man's second book, which mirrors those views whole-heartedly.

On a smaller note, I will say that people don't realize men are objectified just as much as women. It is generally accepted that men should be strong, protective, untroubled stoics. Now the difference is that most men have no problem with trying to adhere to this, because... well, it's our role. The reason behind these truths for both men and woman are, in fact, healthy towards society. It's social darwinism.

>>2562796
>On a smaller note, I will say that people don't realize men are objectified just as much as women. It is generally accepted that men should be strong, protective, untroubled stoics. Now the difference is that most men have no problem with trying to adhere to this, because... well, it's our role. The reason behind these truths for both men and woman are, in fact, healthy towards society. It's social darwinism.

Yeah, no I completely disagree with you there. Those kind of views can be harmful, but more than that, it is important for every member of society to come to his own ownership of himself. To own his own life and determine what he is insofar as that is possible. And that means that these kind of images are not actually good - inevitable, yes, but we need to transcend them. It's not meritorious to stay within these roles thoughtlessly.

>>2562796

>It's social darwinism.

Social darwinism hasn't been taken seriously for at least 60 years.

Feminism is a part of a longer series of cultural marxist culture-deconstructionists, it's the epitome of the victim industry and belief that you're entitled for what you are and who you are

Feminists are liars, obsolete and contradictory in that feminists is the pursuit of masculine qualities

Feminists and cultural marxists use vague and emotional terms like "equality", terms that often hold so many implications and assumptions that are not true at all, e.g. the assumption that men hold so much power and that they are these monsters exploiting and repressing women and non-whites

Feminists call themselves anti-fascists, but Winston Churchill said that the future fascists would call themselves exactly that. Egalitarians are fascists and war-mongers and political correctness is their tool to repress any free debate or thought.

Do yourself all a favour and free yourself.

>>2562808
>for what you are INSTEAD of who you are

>>2562804

Maybe so, but it's a completely logical thought-process. Think about this for a moment; why do we have the cureent, patriarchal system? Well, it's fairly simple when you look in terms of the past. The world was not always a hospitable place, and lives were much shorter. Women were protected and sometimes, oppressed due to their roles. The fact is that one man can do the job of a hundred when it coems to reproduction, but a woman can only give birth once every 9 months or so. This, coupled with the fact that men and women are biologically different means that both genders -should- have different roles. It's natural progression, not willful malice.

ugh this thread turned so gay I am forced to delete my joe abercrombie posts so that they're not tainted, good day to you sirs

>>2562814

Wow, my typing skills went down the toilet.

>>2562814

Things can be logical and still wrong.

>>2562808

>Feminists call themselves anti-fascists, but Winston Churchill said that the future fascists would call themselves exactly that.

Wow so, if we don't want fascists, we should support fascists? This is an amazing bit of logical gymnastics you've constructed.

>>2562827
If you don't want to support fascists, then you you cease your support of the state

It's very apparent you're a brainwashed public school retard

>>2562829

But Winston Churchill was a head of state.

>>2562831
And?

>>2562827

Let me point you towards a bit of media that you may have overlooked, and you bet your ass this was constructed by the feminist culture.

Look at any commercial featuring a husband and wife, or any couple stereotype. The man is almost -always- made out to be a moron. Why is this? Well, our current culture leans on a system where men can be disposable and taunted, but females being called sluts or anything discrediting is seen as an asshole move. Fuck that nonsense. If a female wants the same treatment as a man, then they will have to idealize themselves as MEN. We are snug in the same roles as protectors and providers that we developed since the beginning of civilization. Modern feminists would have you believe that having us sacrifice our lives, do the hard labor, and give up our happiness for the welfare of the family to be the norm and expected, but if a female fills the traditional role as caretaker, then they are the object that fuels the power-hungry pigs that oppress them.

>>2562832

So you're citing a head of state and then saying if you support the state you're a fascist.

Either you think Churchill is a worthy person, and therefore you're a fascist warning people against fascism, which would be very strange.

Or you don't think Churchill was a worthy person, and your quote is disingenuous.

>>2562835

>Look at any commercial featuring a husband and wife, or any couple stereotype. The man is almost -always- made out to be a moron.

Oh look confirmation bias.

>>2562839

Oh look, nit-picking my post without using context.

>>2562837
No to it all, I don't admire anyone associated with statism, but that doesn't mean what they say can't be truth or hold any truths

I don't understand why you would say this

>>2562835
>>2562839
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLkc5430lGM&feature=plcp&context=C471268dVDvjVQa1PpcFMg6ufhku
VCYkxJ7aRVc_2R18d7w8wR1eM%3D

>>2562847

So it's okay to support statism when it supports anti-statism?

My god your mind must be an absolute mess.

>>2562841

Nit-picking? That was your whole premise, bro.

>>2562850
It was an example to emphasize a truth. If you are denying what I am saying right now, then you are blind, and I feel sorry that you haven't been awakened to your emasculation.

>>2562849
You're not making any sense, you seem to just keep projecting

>>2562827
Fascism is something a little more specific then just a synonym for tyranny.

"anti-fascists" literally means they are communists.

The media has been applying "anti-fascist" term to shitskins attacking whites for a while now, because that gives the impression the violence is political or justified.

>>2562839
It's just reality, go look at how often race mixing is promoted on the media as well.

>>2562855

>statists can say some truth
>AGREE WITH ME OR YOU'RE A FILTHY FUCKING STATIST

This is you.

>>2562860
But what is your pont? Are you trying to call me hypocrite because I think Winston Churchill said something true in one particular time? And why do you place so much of your focus on Churchill?

>statists can say some truth
>agree with me or youre a filthy fucking statis
non-sequiteur, you're not explicitly saying why my mind is such a mess

>>2562871

>Are you trying to call me hypocrite because I think Winston Churchill said something true in one particular time?

Yes.

Kvothe is a huge, undeniable Mary Sue.

That being said, Rothfuss is a phenomenal writer. I'm about a third through the Wise Man's Fear right now.