Authors like Patrick Rothfuss

[Anonymous No.5772632]

What are some other authors like Patrick Rothfuss?

I'm really liking Name of the Wind so far.

[Anonymous No.5772654]

>>5772632
Abercrombie.

p.s. pleb

[Anonymous No.5772665]

>>5772632
What's that one like by fantasy standards? I used to enjoy the genre but after reading more serious stuff I can't go back to the shit prose. If it's passable (RR Martin or better) I'll check it out

[Anonymous No.5772670]

>>5772665
It's not better than Martin.

[Anonymous No.5772749]

>>5772665
Can't speak to fantasy levels since I'm not very far in yet. It's the writing itself that I'm enjoying more than Martin and others. More stylish and finer attention to details even though it's shorter chapters/paragraphs than Martin. Big fan of Game of Thrones like everyone else, but Rothfuss is a nice contrast to everything else I've read. He's the type where one line can describe an entire day of the character and you find yourself think about all the ramifications of that one line for the next 24 hours.

Would love to find more authors like him, of any genre

[Anonymous No.5772760]

>>5772749
Sounds good enough for me. I just want to have some fun reading fantasy without being distracted with horrible prose and dialogue.

[Anonymous No.5774232]

>>5772665
It's really well written by fantasy standards.

Its story isn't as interesting as Martin's but it's definitely written better. Much better prose and pacing.

[Anonymous No.5774676]

>>5772632
>>5772654
>>5772665
>>5772670
>>5772749
>>5772760
>>5774232

>2014
>Not enjoying Sapkowski...

[Anonymous No.5774696]

>>5772665
It's well written but dull.

Way too much of it is "ooh magic uni"

[Anonymous No.5774732]

>>5772654
I really liked name of the wind but I really disliked abercrombie. Shit was so cliche-trying-not-to-be-cliche. Rothfuss at least owns up to "standard heroes journey" stuff.

>>5772632
Try Sandersons Way of Kings

[Anonymous No.5776025]

Gene Wolfe has a similar sense of wandering plot from a first person perspective - check out The Book of the New Sun. It's harder, but much better, and it gave me a similar sense of adventure
>>5772665
The prose is clean - cringey sometimes but very readable, perfect in fact for getting people who "don't like books" back into reading. There's little in it that you'd pause and rewrite in your head as well (I assume I'm not the only person that does that).

>>5774732
Blandon Blanderson is one of the most boring writers I've ever encountered. Most of the names for original things in his world are literally just two words joined together - makes it read like amateur fan-fiction, and the prose and characters are very flat as well

[Anonymous No.5776127]

>>5772665
if you read Nabokov, you can't read this, shit prose indeed

[Anonymous No.5776188]

>>5772665
It's basically just an A Wizard of Earthsea ripoff, with some magic system and unreliable narrator edge, and an agonizingly 'mary sue' protagonist.

You might think that the unreliable narrator would somehow create some humour, undermine the 'mary sue' shit, and maybe even offer funny self-reflexive commentary on the fantasy genre... it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.5776244]

Awesome! Thanks for all the additional suggestions, everyone!

[Anonymous No.5776361]

Op, try some real high-tier fantasy.
Just make sure that you go in blind.
No synopsis, don't look it up.
This book sets the fucking standard on having a complex and flawed protagonist.

It's also REALLY fucking hard to enjoy.

This book will challenge you.

[Anonymous No.5776371]

>>5772632
I assume that you've already read this.
Or listened to it, which honestly is the best way to experience it, since Lynch's dialogue is amazing.

[Anonymous No.5776378]

>>5776371
Forgot pic

[Anonymous No.5776386]

>>5776361
This paperback has been sitting in my dad's basement with a ton of other cheap scifi from back in the day. Is it really worth picking up?

[Anonymous No.5776405]

>>5776386
>Is it really worth picking up?

This is one of those polarizing series that you may have to try and decide for yourself. It's not fantasy lite, and it's a book that requires adult insight for the nuance, and what it has to say about a very full picture view of human nature. Seen without the angst, the protagonist is a character beseiged on all fronts at the start - the ONLY thing he has left to cling to is his sanity, in a beset situation where everything else in his life has come undone. And then, that very bastion - his intellectual grip on his life and world - is thrown into question, with all of the fallout this entails.

The world where it takes place is totally gorgeous, well drawn, and evocative. The character's struggle - not everyone will relate to it; the protagonist is not the standard Epic Hero - as a work of literate depth, the series has a great deal of merit, but depending on what you bring to the table, it may or may not work for you.

Donaldson is not an author who pulls his punches, or dumbs down his approach.

Personally, I'd consider one the greatest works of fantasy in the last 60 years. But it's certainly not a light, casual read. Despite what the pulpy cover and title would lead you to believe.
Most people who drop this series do it all at the same point, about 1/4 through the first book.

[Anonymous No.5776475]

>>5776025
>There's little in it that you'd pause and rewrite in your head as well (I assume I'm not the only person that does that).
>being this autistic
jesus fuck

[Anonymous No.5776479]

>>5776361
WHAT EVER YOU DO, DO NOT TOUCH THOMAS THE UNBELIEVER
THESE FAGGETS AT LIT RECOMMENDED IT TO ME AND WASTED 3 WEEKS OF MY LIFE TRYING TO FINISH THAT BOOK IT WAS THAT BAD

[Anonymous No.5776487]

>>5776479
Not enough "hardcore action" and "awesome fights" for you?
Maybe something like Eragon is more your literary level, friend.

[Anonymous No.5776493]

>>5776479
Let me guess, you couldn't handle Thomas as a character?

[Anonymous No.5776518]

>>5776493
Him crying "I'm a leeper don't touch me" got annoying(and that is basically the book, him crying about his leprosy and getting "powers" for it)

The overuse of the words erect and ejaculate was not doing it any favours.

The thing that boggles my mind is that there are e/lit/ist who claim that the rape scene in this book is better than the one in Prince of Thorns... You must surely jest.

[Anonymous No.5776547]

>>5776487
>Not enough "hardcore action" and "awesome fights" for you?
I'm a fantasy fag, I mainly read fantasy i.e magic, but if I can enjoy Lolita which has zero "action"( if you call running from the copers action, then it has) then what does the lack of action and awesome fights have to do with the merit of the story in Thomas Covenant?

I'm one of those fags who don't judge a book by it's cover. I actually read the WHOLE book out before I make my decision to say it's shit or its good.

When I say it's shit I have my facts to back it up. The book is boring and nothing happened, maybe you were a kid when you read it(like when You read Eragon) and your nostalgic glasses are on. Go reread it along with Eragon and see what shit it actually is.

[Anonymous No.5776558]

>>5776518
I will admit that Donaldson's prose can be a little archaic at times.
>Prince of Thorns.
And this is how you know this is b8. An edgy as fuck book about a 14 year old murderer-rapist prince who used to fantasize about torture when he was nine, with a few retarded sci-fi twists thrown in. Jorg is a terrible character.
The rape is Prince of Thorns is shock value for the sake of it.
The rape in Lord Fouls Bane is a key plot-point and a key to Covenant's character.
Comparing Lawrence's schlock to Donaldson's work is like comparing Little Wayne with Bach.
You've failed completely to understand the point of Thomas Covenant.

[Anonymous No.5776572]

>>5776547
>When I say it's shit I have my facts to back it up
Which is equivalent to a spoiled child having difficulty in history class, then proclaiming that "History sucks!"
>The book is boring and nothing happened.
Did we read the same fucking book?

You just didn't enjoy it because you can't project escapist bullshit into it and that Thomas isn't a "likable" unlikable character.

[Anonymous No.5776654]

>>5776558
>The rape is Prince of Thorns is shock value for the sake of it.
>The rape in Lord Fouls Bane is a key plot-point and a key to Covenant's character.
What key plot point? That he was without pussy so long that he longed for the touch of another and give in to his base desires?

>And this is how you know this is b8.
>he don't like my favouritest book in the whole wide world
>it must be bait
OR
>he thinks that Jorg's rape is better than Thomas'
>musk be b8

[Anonymous No.5776676]

>>5776654
I'll break it down, nice and easy.
The rape is not consistent with his life-saving strategy of denying the Land's existence. It is a moment of weakness, a moment he gives in to the life force coursing through him (and his belief that he is only dreaming, after all). For the rest of the series, no one despises Covenant more for that act than Covenant himself does. In fact, many characters try explicitly to excuse or forgive it. Covenant is Covenant's harshest judge. At his core, he is not despicable, but incredibly, painfully hard on himself in his righteousness.

The rape convinced Covenant that he himself is not to be trusted. The Land can heal his leprosy, but it can't erase, in his judgment, the "rot" at his core. He deserves to be ill; he doesn't deserve the Land. And so he holds back...because it is essential to managing his disease, because self-denial is part of his nature, and because his error has taught him self-contempt. The guilt and judgment in this series are biblical in their magnitude.

[Anonymous No.5776690]

Man, you faggots really need to learn to use spoiler tags.

[Anonymous No.5776726]

>>5776690
The book is shit why do you need to read it?
You spoiler things that are worth while to read.

[Anonymous No.5776751]

>>5776726
>Says the guy who likes Prince of Edge

[Anonymous No.5776767]

>>5776676
....
When I read this book I expected fantasy, not some embellished shit that has "deep meaning" on what it means to be human....
If this is how the book is suppose to be taken, then the fault is mine for judging it so.

I didn't expect this to be a fedora book where you masturbated to the prose and tipped constantly at the "deep euphoric" meanings.

I expected to sit down and read about some leper who traveled to a distant land to destroy an ancient evil. If the book is not meant to be taken at face value then it's not for me still shit imho

[Anonymous No.5776776]

>>5776767
>all them buzzwords
>Muh Fantasy can only be swords, sorcery and medieval politics
>Having deeper themes than "Dis da bad guy, kill 'im and don't forget to self insert" makes a book "fedora"
Yeah, I think that we're done here.

[Anonymous No.5776792]

>>5776776

[Anonymous No.5778692]

>>5776518
>you must surely jest