Know a person by the quality of their enemies

Ah, the sweet smell of principled disagreement in the morning!

Ah, the sweet smell of principled disagreement in the morning!

I was going to stop with my earlier post about, you know, people saying sexist shit.

But then I saw this comment on Staffer’s, and I felt moved to hold it up as an example of the old adage of “You shall know them by the quality of their enemies.”

Keep on keeping on, Landon.

8 thoughts on “Know a person by the quality of their enemies

  1. The ironic thing about certain menz being all up in arms about us wimminz being so mean to poor old Rothfuss is that his answer would not have been quite as gross – and therefore not so very much in need of being called out – if it were not for them.

    It was gross regardless, but it was the context that made it “I need to bleach my brain out now.” And that context is that reddit is full of well, the kind of men that would ask that question in the first place.

  2. Love the initial post, and love this. The plethora of damsels in distress who constantly needed rescuing in “Wind” irked me (that, and the quality of the prose, although the world-building was vivid and ace). Had it been written in, say, 1987, I wouldn’t have blinked an eye. That was the norm and I’m used to reading around it in older books. But 2007? The gender treatment seemed archaic, and really stood out for me.

    Compare that to Scott Lynch’s “Lies of Locke Lamora.” I can’t help comparing them because Rothfuss and Lynch are very much of the same demographic, hit it big around the same time, and also because I happened to read both novels back to back. I adore Lynch’s novel for many reasons (the basic story, the deft similes and metaphors and general prose style, the world, etc etc), and even though it’s very much about a group of guys,* the women in Camorre are people, you know? Not sex objects. And if a book with few female characters is more egalitarian and fulsome than a book featuring several…it’s telling. (Lynch of course went on to give us more female presence in books 2 and 3 and they’re well-drawn characters. As expected. I haven’t read Rothfuss’ second book, but maybe there’s been an improvement?)

    I’ve been gnashing my teeth over “Wind” for years and have felt very alone in my lack of love for it–again, for all kinds of technical reasons, not just “feminist killjoy” ones. I guess what this post boils down to is: none of the Reddit stuff surprises me, and I experienced an “Aha, told you so!” moment directed at the entire universe when I read your earlier post. Thank you for sponsoring my day’s moment of refreshing smugness. :)

    *Not a drawback in itself–at least, not for me.


    I haven’t read anything by Rothfuss, so I can’t comment on his writing chops. (I do like Lynch’s work, though. I have to find time eventually to catch up with Republic of Thieves.)

  4. Hey just wanted to say thanks for posting this stuff. I was about 7/8 of the way through The Name of the Wind when I saw your first post on this. I thought things were weird with sausagefest going on in the first part of the book, with the only female character being the kid’s mother. Then another character actually makes a joke about how there were no women in the story. Immediately after that we are introduced to a couple of rescue ready damsels.

    I actually have the second book on reserve at my library. But I’m not going to finish this first one and I’m going to cancel the reserve on the second.

    Again, I appreciated the post and I hope you keep writing reviews on Tor, since your writing is tops.

  5. Tried Name of the Wind. In my review file wrote the following: “LOTR wanna be. Drone on forever, nothing happens. Quit after three pages.” Err. IMO, why give a good GD?

Comments are closed.