It's been the same baby for the past 20 years. It started out cute, but when the guy became 20, it became obnoxious. :)

I wish I didn't have to hear a noisy toddler while trying TO listen to Patrick Rothfuss...

_"but then, I'm a woman, so I notice these things"_ *LizzieSingsASong, 2015* I'm a man, so I notice these things.

But then again, criticizing a book that was written in 1937 for not being modern is a little silly isn't it? Don't get me wrong, I like strong women in fiction. But that's like criticizing LOTR for having all the fantasy cliches...

Chaoteee Uh, not in the book. Not a single woman in the thing, and no one thought of sex.

***** It's a little weird because there are hundreds of named and unnamed characters in that book. Statistically, there's gotta be at least one, but there isn't. Also books in 1937 had women in them, so its not a time period issue. That's also around the time those Wizard of Oz books (which usually had a female protagonist) were still coming out.

Chaoteee There are thriving civilizations and communities that cross generations that exist without black people, Asians, minotaurs and gay elves. There are zero that exist without women. Because, y'know, people need to be born somehow. (Also genetically it's around a 50/50 shot for humans to be born female.) Unless you like stories where all those dwarves/humans/elves that are "Sons of So-and-so" jumped fully formed out of their father's dicks, you're not going to have a good time trying to prove that women shouldn't exist in fantasy, lol.

When people go on about "Let people write what they want", I have to laugh. Yes, you can write what you want. You can write a story about how the nazis were the kindest, gentlest souls in the universe and were just trying to do what was best for the jews and then it all just looked horrible from the outside... but that doesn't make it good writing. Yes, you can write a novel without women, but if you don't actually have a setting/situation that justifies the lack of them, then once people notice it (and while fantasy is a genre where the readers might not notice if you've got an otherwise good story because the readers are so accustomed to it, if your story is set in New York 2015 and your character doesn't even bump into or see a lady on the streets of get served by a female waitress or share an elevator with one or in any way indicate that there's single female person in the city of New York in general, readers will certainly notice a lot easier) then they'll find your story giving them this odd feeling like it takes place in the middle of an episode of the Twilight Zone. And unless you're going for that feeling, it's probably not a good thing. It will claw at your reader's willing suspension of disbelief, and they'll cease to accept your story's internal "reality". That's bad writing. And your free to write badly if you want, but that doesn't make it a good idea to try to pass it off as good writing. (Before anyone says anything: Tolkein is a great writer who I think in this case just made a bad choice. The Hobbit is good-- the fact that it doesn't have a single girl is not.)

[applauds] THANK YOU. this articulates so much of my frustration at these men.

It's very simple, please allow me to explain if you will. The lack of women is only logical, since women make poor leaders and are generally weak, timid, and ineffectual, traits which in general don't make for interesting characters. Sorry to be so blunt, but you, like so many liberals, appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that women are omitted from prominent roles out of spite or malice, when nothing could be further from the truth. Rather it a benevolent paternalism which recognizes that women are best suited to quiet domestic roles on the sidelines where they can cheer on their menfolk and have a hot meal ready for them when they return. I hope this helps clear some things up for you Corbin.

mittROMNEY666 Aww. Look at the troll, all dressed up and pretending he's people. That's adorable.

MegaKaitouKID1412 unfortunately, you can't always count on people like that to be trolls. I've personally known people who have held similar views. It's pretty sad.

He's really nice in person! Have you met him at a signing? ~NW

Thank you for watching! I enjoyed the panel and he's super nice! ~NW

nope in the book as well

He did say pretty much this trilogy is a prologue. Maybe we'll get more

I know he has said that he will make more books in the same universe, but I believe he has stated that none of them will have Kvothe in them.

It was The Last Unicorn by Peter S Beagle. ~NW

The Nerd Element At 30:10 he says a name like "Matt Scladstone", but that man seems to not exist.

He says Max Gladstone

SuperGuy344 I was thinking of the name he rushed through right be before he said that name. ~NW

The Nerd Element www.goodreads.com/book/show/29127.The_Last_Unicorn

I feel like if he gave us short stories sometimes it would help alleviate some of the anxiety some fans feel about him even finishing this series. I also understand that he may just be feeling pressure so focus on other things. ^Natty

"bro club line" That right there. Just that. Made my entire day.

And the majority of the ones you mentioned also happen to be left nameless. The point this man is making is that all of the roles of any consequence in most stories are filled by only one gender. Doesn't that speak volumes about our culture?

TEHFUZZEHONEZ No, I can't see it. For all I know, Tolkien just didn't want to fit in any females because he was angry at his wife. Joke aside, please tell me what this action speaks of our culture.

Resmarax I think the point Pat was trying to make wasn't that Tolkein was a villain or anything. He's free to write that way if he wants, and because of the medieval style world the book takes place in, and because of when it was written, it's not exactly unexpected. However, the problem is that NOBODY NOTICED THIS. It's been 60+ years since that book was written, and while it may not have been weird then, it DEFINITELY should be weird now, and it isn't, and that really speaks to how far we still have to go when it comes to our portrayal of women in media, and our perception of women in real life. Even in a medieval fantasy setting, where men are 100% in power, women still must perform important duties just like they did in real life medieval times, or society would collapse. They are mothers, cooks, clothes makers, farmers, teachers, soothsayers, advisers to their children and husband, etc. What young 20-something man hasn't gone to his mother for advice (my mother died when I was young, but my grandmother is the first person I go to when I need to talk about something serious), and yet why is that mother/son relationship almost entirely absent in a genre that is full of young men going through the toughest, most confusing ordeals of their young lives? Pat's fucking right, why the hell does no young adventurer ever think about his mother? It's weird, and not true to life, and that's the problem. Writers do their best to write deep, complex characters that mimic real life. No good writer has ever deliberately tried to write bad, shallow characters. So what's with the women? Why are we doing such a fucking shit job of writing women characters that mirror the nuanced, critical role they have in real society compared to our male characters? Why is it that even otherwise fantastic writers like Gene Wolfe can fail so hard, so repeatedly at writing women characters that aren't insulting to women everywhere? Why is it even a thing that they can be ENTIRELY left out of a book, and then that book goes on to influence an entire genre for 60 years, and nobody notices? HALF THE POPULATION, just left out, and nobody notices anything awry. I guess they weren't important enough for Tolkein to include, and they're not yet considered important enough in real life for most people to notice that they're missing, either. The problem is that It's not just an artistic choice like you seem to think. This shit happens because, culturally, women are seen as less important and less capable than men on a subconscious level, and that gets perpetuated (mostly unintentionally) through the media that we create. Bottom line is, if you don't have a single woman in your story, not even a side character like someone's mother or an oracle or a clothier, you damn well better have a lore reason for it or you are doing something horribly wrong, both for the credibility of your story, and for yourself as a person.

ForeverMasterless So surely, at the end of your argument you speak to modern writers, right? If not you'd be contradicting yourself with what you said in the start, where you said it was alright that Tolkien wrote the way he did because of the time he was in, and because he chose to write the way he did. But I really don't see why "women" (can't really generalize all of them) want to be more in power than they already are? It seems their power struggle is as hard as any man in such a position! Take for instance Hilary Clinton, or google "female presidents" and look at the wiki article that lists all the heads of state in the past century. Also, you find women in any business. Maybe they're not the CEO, but neither is every man in the building. There can only be one, so should be the CEO just because she is a woman? That might have a gone a tad bit off subject, but I still think it ties in with "how the woman in modern society is treated". Back to the topic, I think that perhaps it wasn't a conscious choice Tolkien made to exclude solid female characters from his literature, however, in today's society it would be. If that is the case it would be a choice for creative freedom. It may not be well accepted by the public, but fair nonetheless. Art is not meant to please the entire world at once. If it was, art would not be what it is today, or what it has ever been. We will always have different tastes and opinions. For instance, it was weird to me that Tolkien excluded solid female characters. The book worked fine without it in my opinion. But times evolve, which is why it is weird in today's society (for many). I can see why women feel they are oppressed, though I think it's only because they want something new. Like you mentioned, women have always had roles in society, and without them it would have crashed. Now they tend to think that it's the man's turn to take those roles, even though he may not even be well equipped enough for it. That is however just the radical feminists' point of view. I know plenty of women who disagree. It's a messed up world, isn't it?

beautifully said ;) If this guy wants to write a book only with women in it no one forbids him to do it. what is the problem? why he is picking on a guy who is dead long time ago? probably because he will never create anything even close to his novels and that is what bothering him

pinang1 This guy did write his own book. A couple of 'em. And they're good, too. I'd argue one of the best book series I've ever read.

No one seems to understand that when we talk about these things no one is suggesting we police each other to make sure it's absolute perfect. It's just about being conscious of what we're writing and noticing our cultural shortcomings. God fucking damn it every time someone says this it turns into "you can't tell me what to write I can write this if I want!" well good for you. You can. I just urge you to think about why you write it that way, and why almost everyone else does it too. It's not an isolated incident.

He's not really STOPPING anyone from writing what they want though? Or does free speech not include debating the status quo or the way things have been done or are being done? Does free speech not include critique of other people's work? Sounds more like you're the fascist than he is...

Twisting his statements into a pro-censorship position is absurd.

That's not in the book at all.

Its in the appendicies

Ser Barry its in the appendices

But not in the hobbit book itself

+Ser Barry no, but the appendicies tell stories of what happened during the hobbit, but yes it wasnt in the hobbit book, but all other tolkien books have strong female characters

Robert J. Williamson So there were no nurses? No women back at home that said men wanted to return to to build a life with? The same women who left their households to go to plants and help with everything from industry to knitting socks for the men at war? Go to wikipedia and you will see that women may not have been in the trenches, but they were definitely involved in the war!

Adrienne Angelescu - I was not suggesting women were not involved in the war effort, or anything even close to that. I wrote that the Hobbit is about an adventure undertaken by men and was inspired by the adventure undertaken by Tolkien with men on the way to France and in the trenches. Have you read Tolkiens war diary? Men lived together and did all the living, sharing and dying together. READ what I wrote and respond to that if you must, but don't just leave you own comment and pretend that's what I said. 1. "So there were no nurses?" I didn't say that, you just did. 2. "No women back at home that said men wanted to return to to build a life with?" I didn't say that, you just did. 3. "The same women who left their households to go to plants and help with everything from industry to knitting socks for the men at war?" I didn't say anything about this either and it does not relate to what I did say. 4. "Go to wikipedia and you will see that women may not have been in the trenches, but they were definitely involved in the war!" I don't need to use wikipedia, as I'm aware of this and the women in my family were involved in both world war efforts? Driving vehicles, working the land and by WW2 my aunt made Mosquito Fighters. They were not involved in the fighting and journey of the soldiers which is what the Hobbit was inspired by. He wrote about when he was in the war and sleeping in the trenches and being eaten by lice and fighting and getting sick. He lost close and dear friends that changed him forever. This is the inspiration for the Hobbit and this is why there is not a woman on the journey with them. The Lord of the Rings deals with deeper emotions about the war and the loss of friends and death etc. This was an experience shared by most men of this age who lost their best friends and family members. Men fighting and dying side by side. This is not a feminist issues, this is a factual historical issue. If he had not moved his experience to a world of fantasy and left it in WW1, no one would ask where are the women fighting with them, because there were no women fighting with them. He is writing from experience and I think it is a little shameful for critics to try and make out he is being sexist. He fought and his friends died. Male friends. I wish you all the best, but please don't try to put words in people's mouths in the future, to advance your own political causes.

Robert J. Williamson I was pointing out that women had just as an important role in the wars as men, even though not physically there. How many more men would have died if women hadn't helped by taking over the industry and producing more weapons? With this in mind, how is it in any way sexist that many men died in the war? Even while at war, people do not forget about those they love. There have been plenty of cases in which men stayed alive and sane for the sake of the women they had at home, be they mothers, sisters or wives. Having barely a passing mentioning of any female subscribes to the traditional stupid ideas that women don't count. Tolkien's generation knew better than any of the previous generations that without women, you cannot win wars.

Kitti Kat He didn't present it as evidence. He pointed out that we think of Tolkien as the grandfather of the epic fantasy genre, and how his writings affect how we still write fantasy today, and how women still have a surprisingly low presence in the fantasy genre on the whole.

Isnt that because majority of fantasy stuff are centered in war, so obviously we're going to have more male characters on them? If a story is centered in fighting situations is much more easier to put a man in role, cause, you know, more body strenght? Characters like Arya from A Song of Ice and Fire are exceptions in our real world(there are not a lot of Joanna D'arcs-woman who fights- in history) maybe thats why its reflected the way it is in fantasy "war centered" fiction. When the stuff is not centered in physical action, like Avalon, we see more women having more importancy in the plot.

Crimson Watcher Strength isn't the only factor in war. Especially when you have weapons. That's a very 50's way of thinking. Women are perfectly capable of being strong, tactical, strategic, and talented in war. Part of the point is also that this is fantasy, and when you have elves and talking trees and rings that make you invisible, "realism" isn't really an excuse for thinking women don't "belong". Women are every bit as angry and violent as men, and as capable of acting out of anger. I understand why you'd think the way you do, as that's pretty much still the norm, but it's a bit dehumanising for women.

My point is the majority is made by men, not 50 percent, hte vast majority. Whats dehumanising for women in stating the real life facts? Do we have 50/100 of women in armies? Do we had in middle ages wars? Ancient history(before Christ) wars? We do/did not. Elves(as in Tolkiens, specific) have super power, so a female elf will aways be stronger than ANY men and human women. What i said is about the protagonists of majority fantasy novels centered in action, that being said"tactical, strategic, and talented in war." Yes, woman can be. My point is, arent reality reflected in fiction? "Oh theres talking tree, why cant we have 'strong independent womyn?' Oh theres no talking three in protagonis roles. This doest excuse that the fantastic element of fiction isnt separated from the reality on them(in a song of ice and fire we have icy zombies and yet the human element is very realistic). They coexist. Should 5 out 10 histories centered in war have female protagonists when its irrealistic? We can have. The autor can do what he wants, doesnt matter the taste of the readers. My point in this is: is a rule, there should be 50/50 men and women in those roles? Its what it looks like when i see those argumentes about "sexism because theres no strong sword wielder women in those histories as protagonists". What i want? I want that you use those argument in our real world context. "Women are every bit as angry and violent as men, and as capable of acting out of anger." I write my own novel too, one of the three protagonist is a woman, but she doest fight, well, the majority of real life women doest fight. She uses her inteligence. Theres magic too, its fantasy, but she is no elf, she is limited to human stuff. Im i being sexist for not writing her "strong as her male protagonists fellows"? Strong is a relative concept, my charater maybe strong in personality(what is personalitly strong? Just i concept me or you find strong, maybe not for another person), but weeker than her male friends. The point here: this is reality, men are more capable of physical stuff than women, the women who are as such are exeptions. SO, if theyre exeption in real life, this reflects in my book(if i want that aspect of real life to be included in my fantasy book). Whats the deal? "" I understand why you'd think the way you do, as that's pretty much still the norm," Maybe its the norm because its real. . "Women are every bit as angry and violent as men, and as capable of acting out of anger." Did you had fighting class? I had. Anger is not the main fator for you to be the winner of a fight. I will always be less capable in a fight of a friend of mine who had the same training as me, doesnt matter how much angry i could get. He is taller than me, that can make him reach his target easier, so he is stronger than me and aways will be. I can defeat him with hability, but not aways, almost never(but happened). See my point? Doest matter if theres talking three in fantasy novels, in fact, in tolkiens world humans are still humans, no super power, no fantasy on their action. ~~Part of the point is also that this is fantasy, and when you have elves and talking trees and rings that make you invisible, "realism" isn't really an excuse for thinking women don't "belong".~~ Who said women dont belong? The point is: the women who "belong" are less than the men. So, because theres a magic ring in the story women should have the exact same role as a men? So 50/50 of 100 of men and women in an army troop? Doenst matter if the actor wants, what matter is the concept of "diversity" and "equality" some ideologists think is the way things must be in the fiction novel world? Let me ask: do you use those excuses to say that women should have equality in the armies of our real world, being 50/50 of soldiers too? Or just in fantasy novel stuff? Cause you know, ~~Women are PERFECTLY capable of being strong, tactical, strategic, and talented in war.~~ Would be cool. I agree with the tactical, strategic n talented, but strong is relative, if youre saying phisically strong, i cant agree, theyre capable of bettering their body, but a man who do the same training can perfectly be stronger than her.

tiffany aching Okay :^)

In the movies, yeah. Rothfuss is talking about the books.

FocusedOnDistraction i understand he is talking about the books, but at least in the movies they give the women in the book bigger roles, yeah in the book its technically saurmon who disbands sauron in Dol Gudor, but ill have to re-read them for the other parts involving the female characters.

Jordan Garcia good luck with that; there aren't any. i'm not sure how many times people are going to have to tell you that, so let me chip in with one more repetition. THERE. ARE. NO. WOMEN. IN. THE HOBBIT. let that sink in.

tiffany aching​ If you had not been paying attention I am talking about all of Tolkiens middle earth stories not just the Hobbit.

I'm confused as to why you'd bring that up considering he was talking about.... wait for it..... THE HOBBIT. the only statement he made was, "there are no women in the hobbit." so coming back like, "nooooOOO, there ARE women.... in the Tolkien universe!" is completely unrelated and random. like, you're not proving anything by saying that. there still isn't a single woman in the entirety of the hobbit, and that's still a monumentally concerning thing.

James Bauer Representation matters, to be honest. It really does. When you can recognise yourself in a character, see that who you are and what you are is not ridiculed, hated, or diminished, you feel stronger as a person, less alone. Human beings need it. Especially in their developing years. We need to know that we're not broken or monsters or abnormal. Because of media and movies and TV, many people's way of getting this confirmation that we need as humans is through those mediums. When women are present in these mediums, but presented as perfect goddesses as a part of someone's sex fantasy, it is harmful. When women are not present, and all we see are how strong and capable and heroic men are, it is harmful.The fact that you say that having women in the Hobbit possibly wouldn't have "added anything of value" is, sorry to say, misogynistic. Not saying you mean it that way, just that it is. It implies a lot of harmful things, such as women not being valuable, or being able to contribute to a story, or give anything to a story. The fact that they added Tauriel to the Hobbit movies and the majority were thrilled, kind of proves you wrong in one respect. Tauriel added extreme value not only for girls, seeing a powerful heroine outdo her male counterparts, and still not be ridiculed or belittled when she doesn't outdo them. Seeing diversity in a very white, very male industry is critically important for the development and well-being of those who are not white and not male. And also for those who are, who get to see that those who are not white men are still very much human, and still deserving of respect and admiration.

Marin Shiredo In addition to lacking paragraphs, your reply is largely subjective and really just comes down to your "take" or interpretation(s) of things.

James Bauer Not... really? There have been mounds of studies/surveys/what-have-you done about _why_ and _how_ representation matters. It's all on the internet too, so it's not difficult to look up should you not believe me. Also, sorry about the lack of paragraphs. There were paragraphs originally, but when I edited what I wrote it all collapsed together.

James Bauer (I'm really hoping for a light discussion here, because I understand your point 100%) Rothfuss was asked a personal question about what he would change. It doesn't mean he is right, he just has an opinion with supporters. He gives a solid example of an amazing book. I could easily say that adding a female (such as in the movie adaption) could harm the story. But I think Rothfuss main point (before the Hobbit example) was more on a general perspective of writing. It is OK to not be Disney, and there is a good chance that more women will enjoy your writing IF there is a stronger female character they can relate to... Kinda like Princess Leiah.

Shepsus I basically just look at it from point of view as a male, which is that as long as the characters are interesting and/or fit with the story, I really don't care on their gender. In this regard, I understand what you mean when you say a women needs a strong female character she can relate to, I just don't put much worth in the claim. Even when it comes to games and playing protagonists, I enjoy both male and female roles - I create both male and female characters. If you are a woman (or a man) who feels they "need" a strong character of your gender to relate with, then I see that as more of a problem with the person, not the lack of a specific gender in media. A film/game/book/etc. can be all men or all women, and as long as the characters fit the roles, it doesn't really matter. If a female is written in and fits the role, I have no problems, but it seems more and more that women are written in just for the sake of including them, with this notion that media "needs" female roles, and that to me, even worse than not having them at all.

My book will be set in a hospital for persons delivering babies ;) I will make them all male :) Future professors will lose hairs :)

Lol, gotta love when people explain when something isn't harmful to a group which they don't belong to.

You are right. I don't live in middle earth. Is Sauron really to blame for lack of female Orc representation? Who am I to judge?

Chaoteee He may be onto something. There were no Hispanics or Asians in lord of the rings or the Hobbit. MIND BLOWN! Lol.

Ran Viz Since the Hobbit is a European fantasy, it isn't weird to not have Asians or Hispanics in it. However, women should make up about 50% of the people in the MIddle Earth, excluding the Orcs. It's jarring to have no female characters in such a world, if you even think about it for a little bit.

"Since the Hobbit is a European *FANTASY*" Yes it is.

I don't think he was ragging on the Hobbit so much as he was pointing out the fact that the book that's basically the grandfather of all modern fantasy had no women. He does so as part of the explanation why so much of modern fantasy relegates women to lesser roles. He's not saying there's anything malicious or even intentional about it - it's just what the situation is and that people need to make themselves aware of it. Women have not been equally represented in fantasy. All he wants to do is make a conscious shift to include the other half of the world's population as we move forward. Also, regarding the idea that Rothfuss is insecure about having no women in his books - Have you read his books? He's got a ton of strong female characters in there. The main character is male, but he's incredibly powerful - and one of the only people in the books to seriously whip his ass is a woman. Rothfuss has an entire civilization of warriors (the best warriors in the world) in which the women are flat out superior to the men. Even Rothfuss isn't perfect (all of his women have to be strikingly beautiful, for instance), but he's better than many.

FocusedOnDistraction i disagree. just because none of the characters he wanted to put in hobbit happened to take on female form does not mean it is because of the way he views women. just look at the sequel, which has a LOT of strong female characters. eowyn is a fucking badass, and not only that, he actually makes a point of writing in that she does it even though, or even better because she is a woman.

typoded Wait, what do you disagree with? I think we're having two different conversations, hahah. I didn't say anything about the way Tolkien views women. All I'm saying is this - my interpretation is that Rothfuss believes Tolkien is fine. The problem, as Rothfuss is pointing out here, is that the people who grew up on the Hobbit and turned around and became writers often end up leaving women out of their stories because it doesn't even naturally occur to them that women should be there in the first place (because women weren't strongly represented in the stories they grew up with). Regardless of the reasons for the omission of women in the Hobbit, the end consequence is that fewer strong women have made it into our fiction. He's not blaming Tolkien so much as that he's pointing out the fact that it was influential, and that influence has had consequences.

typoded btw, Eowyn is a badass. Totally agreed.

FocusedOnDistraction i think we are having two different conversations. you do realize that the hobbit and lord of the rings were written by the same person right