Hacker News Reader

Comment by adwf | Hacker News Reader

Whilst I agree in some parts, the main character being exceptional is kinda the entire point of a heroic fantasy novel.

They are exceptional by design. If they weren't amazing swordsmen, or magic users, or highly intelligent, or highly determined, they'd be dying at the first hurdle in the story - which is equally ridiculous for a novel. The alternative for underpowered fantasy characters is either a non-perilous story or a lot of "deus ex machina" moments where the character survives by "random" chance. Neither of which are particularly interesting.

Narrative imperative does have some demands on story characters, but it's all down to the quality of the writing as to whether you can suspend your disbelief.

View on HN

Well, being "exceptional" is one thing, but being flawless is something completely different. I agree that the best characters are exceptional, but flawless characters are difficult to take seriously, and tend to be quite boring.

Take Frodo Baggins, Thomas Covenant, Malta Vestrit, Jon Snow, Miles Vorkosigan, Sherlock Holmes or any of the countless prominent characters from fiction of any genre -- they are all quite exceptional, but also significantly flawed in one or many ways. I didn't see any prominent flaws in Kvothe, which made him really boring and uninteresting; now, as someone else mentioned, he is an unreliable narrator of his own life story, and it is quite possible that in later books it will turn out that a lot if it was a lie and his flaws will be revealed, but by then I have long lost my interest and I don't think I'll ever get that far. I do enjoy a good twist in the story, but the story up to that point needs to be interesting on its own; Usual Suspects wouldn't work at all if Verbal Kint was a flawless character.

I would think that Kvothe is every bit as flawed as Miles Vorkosigan. They both end up in sticky situations because they're more than just a little arrogant, which results in them biting off more than they can chew. Kvothe is not the best swordsman, he get's beaten up by a little girl. He is not the best Sympathist, again he get's beaten up when he thinks he is.

I just noticed though, as I'm writing this reply, that most of these flaws come out in the second book, not the first. Maybe you need to stick with the series a bit more before making up your mind.

Yeah, I think for me Kvothe's flawlessness was balanced by the unreliable narrator, who demonstrated that Kvothe in the present/future is not all-powerful anymore (if he ever was). The premise of the book thus appearing to be an inversion of the standard "weak hero becomes strong hero" plot, instead intriguing you from the start with wondering how a strong hero becomes so decrepit.

That's why I found it quite frustrating reading the 2nd book, as the present/future feels like where the "real" story lies, but it made absolutely no advancement in that direction. So I definitely agree with you there, the focus on the super-powered young Kvothe does detract from the main story as I see it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com