Timewaster's Guide Archive
Local Authors => Brandon Sanderson => Topic started by: Shuez on January 16, 2007, 11:25:15 PM
-
On the fantasybookspot.com forums, Brandon made this comment:
"I refuse to give any money to Goodkind in any way, through any of his novels, because I don't like the way he treats his fans. "
I want more info (the gritty dirt). What does he do to his fans?
My impression of him is that he is haughty and pompous (I have not read any of his books though). Am I wrong?
-
http://www.inchoatus.com/Critical%20Essays/Essay--Goodkind's%20Rant.htm
I don't agree with everything the people at inchoatus say--they tend to be a little bit too hard on mainstream fantasy in my opinion--but they have the only reprint of this essay. It was famous for a little while on the internet, and eventually someone convinced Goodkind to take it off of his website for all of the negative press it was generating.
However, I originally read it from his website, and can vouch that it WAS there and this is NOT made up. This is an exact reprint, with some commentary from the website people added in. I've also seen other interviews with him--such as the one on Amazon--that do not make me look favorably on him.
I liked Wizard's First Rule. It is a very good book. I cannot recommend anyone who treats people like he does, however.
-
Note, as I read that one over more, that's his "Why I'm not a fantasy author" interview more than one of his "You are all idiots" interviews, but I think it shows off the kind of person he is.
Maybe I come down too hard on him. He has, by all accounts, written some pretty good books--and if people like them, I have no business going around trying to ruin the experience for them. Plus, I don't refuse to listen to music because the band members act like jerks. Yet, for some reason I expect more of a writer.
Goodkind should be one of fantasy's greatest advocates--he could write his books, then say "Look, this is fantasy, and it's not crap. So, why be so down on fantasy?" Instead, he spearheads the "Fantasy is Crap" army, all the while claiming he's not part of the genre. Add on top of that the way he responds to that fan who asks about Goodkind's later books not being as good as his first ones, and you've got a pretty good perspective on why the guy rubs me the wrong way.
-
I was unable to finish that essay.
The line where he claimed that magic wasn't central to Wizard's First Rule is what did it. The conflict and plot relies on the magic system. Remove magic from the story, or even minimize it, and that story is *eliminated.* There's no central conflict without the magic. There's no secondary/romantic conflict without it. Granted, there could still be the brotherly conflict. However, not a single one of the obstacles I remember our hero running into would have been there if not for magic. That's what made this story what it is.
Is he just pulling things out of his backside when he talks?
-
As nutso and illogical as Goodkind is in that essay I have to say that I am one of those people who immensely enjoy his books and, frankly, probably would not enjoy them as much were they NOT filled with some of the philosophical diatribes that they are.
I can see what he's getting at when he claims that the CENTRAL defining element of the books is not magic. However, his rabid attempts to separate himself from other "Fantasy" on that basis is ridiculous. He uses "magic" to idealize and simplify the points he's making, which is an old and honorable technique of pedagogy. His use of the tropes of fantasy to that end is, while perhaps not the most central element, nevertheless completely inseparable from his stories. Most other fantasy is no more dependent on the magic than he is.
So he uses the magic as a tool, so does every other fantasy author. There is nothing in any novel that is not a tool of some sort to the story.
My biggest objection to the response to his ravings on the part of the Inchoatus folks is their claim that he uses straw men exclusively. Not true. The bad guys in his books espouse philosophies that have enthralled deep thinkers for centuries and which have resulted in the enslavement and murder of millions.
-
Sad thing is I see some of his arguments or agree with some and if he would just say stuff like "no I'm not going to remove the philosophy from my books because it's something that's important to me and lots of people enjoy" no one would really argue with that but instead he goes off for a page on why it's stupid to suggest that thing.
-
I think that his answers to anyone who questioned even a little bit of his process or end result were unquestionably overreactionary. I agree with Saint Ehlers in seeing where he is coming from on some of his issues, and yes, it would be taken in a totally different way if he was just to say that it is important to his work and is enjoyed by many readers.
But saying that anyone that disagrees with his way of thinking, or questions his writing, is, and this is not a direct quote, railing against a writer who uses his brain for something other than space filler, is asinine, in my opinion. Not to mention that it insults a great deal of the population in the world.
I have a very large "to read" pile that does include a couple of Terry's books that were given to me by a friend who knows I like fantasy books, and while I am curious about some of his work, I am not sure I am willing to spend three hundred pages being preached at. Being honest with myself, I will probably still read them, if only to better educate myself with his work, but his interviews and reactions to others is very off putting to a reader that has never opened one of his books.
-
I've read two Terry Goodkind books. I read the second because I enjoyed the first a lot. I haven't read three because my reading list is massive and I promised myself I'd shrink it down before I bought more books.
So yes, I like his writing. Though at times it's a bit too... earnest, I suppose. Ian McDonald's "Bruno the Bandit" has a character called the "good guy" who, in combination with his wife, The Mother Confuser occasionally spoofs Goodkind.
But, he's kind of a wank from what I read. His writing may have legitimate argumentation, but... I don't think that his continuous repetitions of certain arguments are necessarily appealing. I'd prefer them far more subtle.
-
I kind of lean toward what Skar and Sprig said, with my own twist. I think it's pretty cool that Goodkind feels comfortable putting in the philosophy, and am happy he's found a readership for it. I think the people on that website are too harsh in their criticism of some things (as I believe I mentioned above.)
The trick is, I REALLY don't like the way that Goodkind perceives the rest of the fantasy genre, the way that he likes to set himself up above them all, and the way that he is dismissive of critics and--in many cases--honest fans.
Nobody should let my opinion dissuade them from reading and enjoying his books. Yet, the opinion keeps ME from reading and enjoying them--or even wanting to give him a dime of money through sales.
-
That's kind of how I feel about the recent Lauren K. Hamilton ranting at her fans on her blog. In essence, she says, "if you don't like my books, that's fine, leave. If my books are too challenging for your dumb little mind, I don't have a problem with that."
It's a fine line to walk between saying "please don't wait in line for three hours to tell me how much my books suck" and "you're too dumb to understand them anyway."
-
Wow, what peremptory garbage.
What a haughty and arrogant jerk. It is just boastful and self-important blather, cloaked in the appearance of high-flown ideals. >:(
So many people are afraid of certain things that might label or lump them with the 'geeks' of the world. He reminds me of certain musicians (like Wilson of Porcupine Tree) that fight so desperately to denounce themselves as Progressive Rock. Like Fantasy fiction, Progressive Rock is considered 'geeky', but I love them both : ;D
I have a paperback of Wizards First Rule (bought used). I will still get around to reading it someday.
You know, it is not surprising that--given Goodkind's attitude--that he is also a violin maker. It seems oddly pertinent somehow...
-
I have a difficult time believing that anyone could read/hear the things that he says about the Fantasy genre and/or its fans, and think that the guy is decent in the least bit. It's really quite amazing that he has any readership at all at this point. I bought the first few of his books, but after reading the essay that is linked below stopped buying them. I tend to have the same opinion of supporting this guy as EUOL does. If he has such a strong opinion of himself, let him try to support himself with no financial resompense. I have, however, (for some reason still not entirely clear to me) continued to read his books as they have come out (borrowed from the Library every time), and I've become increasingly annoyed by them. Wizard's First Rule was quite the good book. And I loved the way that his second book picked up immediately from where WFR left off. After the second book, however, the rest have followed a very predictable formula: Richard's (main character) girlfriend is in trouble, Richard digs himself into a hole so massive that there is no imaginable way out, Richard's magic takes over his body/mind and saves the day. Not to mention the decline in Goodkind's writing prowess that was visible in WRF, but deteriorated quickly thereafter. For anyone even thinking about picking up one of his books, I'd suggest getting a copy of WFR from your local library and forgetting the rest. You'll thank yourself. Let this guy fade into a deep, quick obscurity. He deserves it.
-
Oh man, I just saw a link to this forum (http://www.mfbb.net/demonspawn/demonspawn/demonspawn.html) from Theoryland, and it's cracking me up.
-
I'm... frightened.
-
Oh dear. . . I thought that site was just a joke, but then I clicked on some of the threads. The "Books not to read" emphasize that Robert Jordon obviously got his inspiration from Goodkind. And the review of FF12 in Everything Else almost made me laugh, but kind of scared me at the same time.
:o
-
I'm 95% sure that is a joke. Terry Goodkind's anti-fans can be quite...dramatic in their mockery of him.
Again, I don't know that I support that kind of behavior, since it strays into treating Mr. Goodkind's fans with disrespect, which I don't think is right. They enjoy his books, which is not surprising, since there are some very good things about those books. My beef with them is my own, and relates to how he has treated other fantasy authors.
-
I enjoy reading Terry Goodkind, but I always hesitate to recommend him. There's something that *still* hard for me to swallow about a medieval society trying to ban... fire.
-
Wait a minute--does he really pretend to not have any idea who people are if his characters are compared to them? Of course there are parallels between people and characters all the time in all books *rolls eyes*. I skimmed the article quickly, but did he really say he did not know who Saul of Tarsus is? Wikipedia says, "Goodkind was born in 1948 and raised in Omaha, Nebraska, where he also attended schooling in art and Catholic Catechism Instruction." If he's Catholic shouldn't he know who Saul/Paul is??? Maybe (I hope) that isn't what he was claiming...
I think he also said in another interview he didn't know anything about Robert Jordan's books--he sure gets defensive quickly...
-
Just so you know achren, Goodkind is not Catholic. He was raised catholic, yes, but he became an objectivist around the age of 20. And Objectivism is purely an atheistic philosophy.
As for this entire thread about Goodkind, I am actually quite the opposite of all who've posted so far. I do NOT think he disrespects his fans, in fact he is the only bestselling author who wrote back to an impressionable 14 year old kid(me) when I first started reading his books in 2003. He's very open and forthright with his fans, and I believe he is correct when he says that those who say they liked his first four books "But then the last seven were crap" are not fans, because they aren't. True fans don't turn on the author.
As for the whole "Fantasy? It's not fantasy!" debate. I think that the author, all authors, have every right to say what genre they think their book is. After all, they did write it, so I think they've at least earned the right to name it what they would. That being said, I am a HUGE fantasy lover (could read anything that's even vaguely well written fantasy) and it doesn't bother me that TG is not, nor does it bother me that he loathes being pigeon-holed into a genre that he did not intend to be a part of.
Bottom line is this: As you can obviously tell, I am a Goodkind fan. Have been for the last 5 years. And in those last five years I've still read fantasy and still managed to avoid being offended by TG's dislike of fantasy. Not only that but reading his books has, in my mind made me a better person as it was the first series I had ever read with characters I could actually look up to and be inspired by, rather than the immoral characters that (admit it) seem to grace a lot of novels anymore. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here, but I'm not unused to it. I hope Mr. Goodkind keeps to his ways and does not allow critics or readers(there's a stark difference between "readers" and "fans") to sway him from his point of view.
Luke
P.S. Just so's you know, the answer is yes, that "Goodkind is God" forum is a trash trick made by detractors. TG fans like myself love the books and the author who wrote them, but trust me, that IS beyond us.
-
I haven't read Goodkind, so I don't really care one way or the other if people love him or hate him. I love reading, so if you love Goodkind and it makes you happy--good for you. :)
But I think even someone raised Catholic who went atheist would have heard of Paul--I mean--come on people! Am I wrong? lol
-
Achren: You are absolutely right. He would know who Saul of Tarsus is. Claiming otherwise is absurd.
Hannibalelantrian: I liked every one of Goodkind's books, I really enjoyed them. The later ones were different than the earlier ones and I still enjoyed them, for different reasons even. In some ways, I liked them more. Thus I think I can honestly say I'm a true fan.
However, an author who writes about magical creatures like wisps and dragons(anciently anyway), magic swords, mother confessors, wizards, etc... who claims his books are not fantasy has a screw loose. Thinking the guy is nuts when it comes to classifying his work doesn't disqualify me as a fan.
Goodkind's books take place in a fantastic setting, his conflicts are based on magic, incontrovertibly so. His books are fantasy. If he claims otherwise I will simply point out that he's nuts while I gleefully read his next book.
-
Terry who? Doesnt he write about that Richard guy that accidently saves the day at the end of each book?
Seriously though, if a person reads, thats good. I dont care what you read (for the most part) as long as you are reading.
-
Well, I shouldn't be surprised to see this thread res'd . . . but I am, and since Steve commented I'll throw my two cents in as well.
I remember enjoying Wizard's First Rule. I did feel that it was a bit derivative, but I felt there were some enjoyable and unique qualities. Goodkind can say whatever he wants about his work of course, there's no question about that--and readers can feel however they want towards them. If he wants to say his series is focused on the rights of plantlife, then I'm cool with that. I, and probably the rest of his readers, will get a kick from the fantasy.
However, I do have problems with his statements about fantasy. As negatively as his ex-fans may be, they aren't as critical as he is. He speaks of plot, character, and humanity as though they were things fantasy doesn't normally contain. To speak of an entire genre and the works within it in such a way is rather arrogant and presumptuous. To claim that he has the freedom of claiming his books are about greater things while the entire fantasy genre is as HE claims it to be? Utter foolishness and very illogical.
There are magical aspects in the series which the plot doesn't hinge upon of course . . . but even the plot of the first novel could not exist without magic. Richard rides on a Dragon under an enchantment of illusion to meet his friends . . . that is vital to the plot. So vital that it is forseen in a vision no less. But it apparently isn't vital enough to define the story. This leads to the age old rule of writing . . . if it isn't necessary to the story, then it shouldn't be in the story. If magic isn't vital to the series, then why is it there? If it is necessary (i.e. vital) to tell the story he wants to tell, then it is necessary (i.e. vital.) In general, I think Goodkind should probably take into account the Wizard's Fifth Rule: "Mind what people do, not only what they say, for deeds will betray a lie." Goodkind seems to be writing a fantasy, but claims not to . . . which should we believe? Again, illogical.
Then there is the change in the series . . . its there. There isn't a question. Some may like it, and that's fine. Some may not, that's fine too. Goodkind is writing for himself, he can do what he wants. I personally, don't enjoy stories with that much gratuitous vulgarity . . . but I'm sure many readers don't mind it. The philosophical meandering is there too. That I don't mind as much . . . though it does distract me.
I'm glad he's brought so many fans into the fantasy genre, and that he's seen such success. I'm also thrilled to see that so many have enjoyed his stories. In that respect, good for him and even better for his fans. Awesome. I don't, however, agree with his viewpoints or attitude; and since they've become more prevalent in the series as it has waxed on, I've stopped reading. I'd encourage people to read Wizard's First Rule, even if just to be aware of Goodkind . . . but I'd recommend it with a caveat--be aware of Goodkind's stance, and how the series evolves.
-
I can see why he doesn't want to be classified into a genre, identifying one part of a book doesn't really say what its about.
I don't like the concept of a genre anyway- books are books, if its well written it shouldn't matter!
He shouldn't have been putting down the fantasy genre though, its disrespectful to his fans. :(
-
As for the whole "Fantasy? It's not fantasy!" debate. I think that the author, all authors, have every right to say what genre they think their book is. After all, they did write it, so I think they've at least earned the right to name it what they would. That being said, I am a HUGE fantasy lover (could read anything that's even vaguely well written fantasy) and it doesn't bother me that TG is not, nor does it bother me that he loathes being pigeon-holed into a genre that he did not intend to be a part of.
the problem with that is that Fantasy is an objective category, with a definition. Saying something isn't fantasy doesnt make it not fantasy. A rose by any other name?
Like Gloria Naylor's Mama Day. It's fantasy. The woman is casting spells. Magic is going on. Sorry, it's fantasy.
That says nothing about how he treats people, but it does show that he's pulling stuff out of his butt. It's fantasy, if he's remotely educated, he should realize that since it's pretty much only fantasy elements, and that fantasy fans are it's biggest readers, and that it's marketed as a fantasy, well if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, you've got to at least consider the possibility that it's a duck, right?
-
I think it is wrong to say that people that haven't enjoyed the most recent SOT books are not fans. I am a fan of the SOT series and have read the first 10 books. However, I am not all that impressed with certian volumes in the series. However, since I do mostly enjoy reading the books and have continued to read the series I would say I am a fan.
But I guess there is that portion that stopped reading the series when they thought it got bad and decided to call the follwoing novels crap. I have ran into several people that feel that way with WOT as well. With that in mind it is hard for me to understand how someone could turn so quickly on an author and say that story is crap. I agree that at times authors can get carried away with the story, but that shouldn't detract from what had been written up to that point. There is nothing to stop Wizard's First Rule and Faith of the Fallen from being among the best fantasy books in the past 15 years.
-
There is nothing to stop Wizard's First Rule and Faith of the Fallen from being among the best fantasy books in the past 15 years.
Except for Goodkind claiming they're not fantasy
*giggles*
-
Touche.
You get the Stumps Me award for the day.
-
:D
I just reread the article EUOL links to in this thread. Because I'm bored, mostly. But it reinfoced my opinion that EUOL's opinion is primarily right. Stuff like this:
Question: Annerinas: Will you, Mr. TG, actually ever go write a non-fiction book exploring fully your ideals and philosophy, getting it out of your system. So that it's not being presented in the next book at the expense of the actual story?
Answer. Translation: Will you please change that way you think and write, stop using your mind, stop being an individual and instead start writing books like every other hackneyed Tolkien clone on the fantasy shelves. Answer: NO
Granted, the question wasn't exactly informed or polite. But a gentleman, in public, wouldn't be such a jerk to someone who is even talking to him because they like his book.
again:
The assertion made by these detractors is a note wrapped around a brick thrown through the window. These people are not fans. There are hundreds if not thousands of fantasy books that fulfill their professed taste in books. Why would they continue to read books they claim are bad? Because they hate that my novels exists. Values arouse hatred in these people. Their goal is not to enjoy life, but to destroy that which is good -much like a school child who does not wish to study for a test and instead beats up a classmate who does well. These people hate what is good because it is good. Their lives are limited to loathing and indifference. It isn't that they want to read a good book, what they want is to make sure that you do not. Ignore them.
to rephrase without any exaggeration or distortion: "If you like some, but not all of my books, you are a hateful person."
What? If I read a book because I had liked a previous book, but didn't like this one, and I mention that to someone, suddenly my life is "limited to loathing and indifference." Arrogent. Rude. Mean-spirited. Self-important. Many other adjectives along the same vein.
Also stuff like this (speaking of Wizard's First Rule:
Was magic central to their story? No.
Uhm... everything that happens in any way in this book (almost) depends on magic. The history behind the reason the bad guy feels like he does. The reason why Richard is where he is. What prompts a sorceress to come looking for him. The way they escape. The thing the must escape THROUGH. The people he fights. What he fights them with. Every obstacle that he must overcome and what is done to overcome them are magic. The *title* itself! How is that not central? He either doesn't understand his work, or else he thinks so little of writers like him that he wants to naively think he's different so he's lying about it. Either answer isn't impressive.
His arrogence extends to editors as well:
What did my publisher insist be on the cover? A red dragon. Was a red dragon, per se, central to the story? No. But in the minds of unthinking individuals the existence of a red dragon in the story superseded all other aspects and defined the book, therefore it went on the cover.
So, my books were categorized according to one of the least important elements of their content - red dragons -at the expense of the most important element - human themes shared by every one of you.
His editor put the dragon on it so it would SELL. And I didn't realize that there was a genre on the market called "human themes shared by every one of you." Nor do I like the implication that putting something in fantasy implies that it can't have human themes.
THis statement also shows a severe misunderstanding of how marketing works -- but that's not necessarily a reflection on how he treats people.
He may say nice things to people. But it's undeniable that he also says rude and cruel things to people.
That doesn't mean his writing isn't good. I think EUOL's in his rights not to do things that bring money to Goodkind as an objection to his behavior. Possibly if all of us acted this way we would have a more friendly world. *shrug*. But I still listen to metallica, even though I think Lars is an inbred moron, and I still read Player Vs Player even though Scott has in the past done some very ill-thought and mean things (I have to admit that I haven't seen him do anything lately that was maddening, but then, I don't read any of his site other than the comic itself anymore). So I can continue to read Goodkind even though I think he's a massive tool. It doesn't make me "not a fan" -- nor does it earn me comparison to a class bully.
Incidentally, on a similar but unrelated note, Pillars of Creation does a wonderful job of undermining the view he keeps purporting that there's not objective good and evil, but that people think they're doing good. The heroine gets converted, because she sees that her previous views were outright wrong. There's a guy in there who has no view that he's doing the right thing. He just like hurting stuff. It makes for a good story, but it pulls some philosophical clout from his theories. But then, on a selfish note, I'm always happy with things that undermine objectivist views.
-
Wow. You know, the interview(?) started off so normal, but then Goodkind's opinion of himself escalated until he made himself out to be a god.
I'm a bit in the minority here, too, though on a different viewpoint. I tried reading Wizards First Rule, but after the first one or two hundred pages I finally gave up. I thought it was boring, dry, and predictable. Not to mention the characters felt like paper cut outs... How was it he beathed life into a dead genre? To which he doesn't belonged, he claims, yet says he revived. Yeah...
-
I think that his "objectivest" philosophy has turned him from a run of the mill egomaniac onto a paranoid egomaniac. Actually, I think Goodkind is upset because Ayn Rand placed her philosophy partially in Fantasy setting (Anthem) but was classified as a "serious" novelist and not a fantasy writer. Here a quote from Shakespeare would be helpful. "The fault dear Brutus (read Goodkind), lies not in the stars but in ourselfs that we be underlings. Rand was original, good fantasy writers are at least imaginative, Goodkind (IMO) is neither. His primary interest is not to write a good story but to adnvance his version of "objectivism". Which puts his novels at a par with those of L. Ron Hubbard.
-
Which puts his novels at a par with those of L. Ron Hubbard.
Ouch. That's a stinging condemnation, if I ever heard one.
Except that...did the novels Hubbard wrote as novels do anything to espouse his philosophy? I didn't see anything of Scientology in Battlefield Earth. (Granted, I didn't read Mission Earth...) Could that mean Goodkind is actually worse than Hubbard?
[EDIT: I should apologize. I'm just piling on because it seems amusing. I haven't actually read any of Goodkind's books, though after reading the interviews I'm less inclined to.]
-
I like where this thread is going.
-
oh the newbie (me) has to get his fingers sticky....
Ok so i went and started reading the 10 page dissertation that Goodkind did, and I tried (honest) to get through some of it, and to be fair I've read and enjoyed every detail of which shade of blue Elayne wanted to wear, and the subtle smell of pepermint vs. mint, in a concoction of tea that Naenyeve (gosh I buggered that spelling) made. BUTTTT I had to stop cause of his drug users reference........
Is it me or did he just say that since I drive, automobile manufacturer's stay in business, and sell cars to drug dealers who then use them in murderous campaigns and that makes me accessory? Or did he say that because cars kill, and I drive one I'm a murderer? Lord how some peoples views are scary.
Mr. Goodkind, you wear your hair long, men with long hair are drugy infested axe murderers therefore you clearly are the same and should be put in the pen or better yet executed. Or perhaps you simply have a fetish with Confessor's and feel your power is derived and your status derived from the length of your hair?
So as a person he certainly is off from me but so what... his writing is what I'll judge him on.
Goodkinds SOT series whatever his mental thought is on it, is in fact VERY similar to Jordan's, fair enough I can accept it, I mean how many ways can you rehash good/evil battles. So when first I read WFR, I thought wow this is a LOT like WOT. But I enjoyed the book... there are some exceptions I'd note in his writing that I do not enjoy. And after the first 2 or 3 books I stopped bying hard back, I could wait the 6 months for sofcover, his books are not worth full price.
1. Kahlan de-mans the bad guy. Good for her, I never ever want to hear it described so thouroughly again.
a. I'm a guy it hurts to think on
b. I like sharing my books with my kids, i cant share this stuff with my kids.
c. The world is full of sick stuff I dont want to see, I dont want to see it in my mind either.
d. I cant get the visual out of my head.
2. little girl with a broomstick where it shouldn't be.
yes the aftermath of war is sick and disgusting....
a. I would never want to see my little girl like that, who do you think every father will see in their mind?
b. What sickness in ones head lets you dream up stuff like that?
c. Sick things happen every day to innocent people, I don't want to see it in life nor in book.'
The only comparison I can make is to Jordan, why, because he is one of the few that has an epic that is as big as Goodkinds... oh and its tech exact same story.
1. Dumai's well.....
There is nothing in this massive battle that I read that would make me say "oh my 11 year old shouldnt read this"
The story is there, the words tell of the battle, my mind can chose how much to fill in. The picture is painted but not zoomed in. PERFECT
2. intimacy... Aviendha and Rand, again and the other times people "hook up" there is NOTHING that I would feel bad about my children reading at any age. At 8 years old my sons would see nothing but two adults playing in the snow. At 15 my son would blush knowing what they are doing but unable to see it clearly. As a father of 3 children I know good and well whats going on.
Jordan's writing caters to ALL ages, because he writes in a way that YOUR imagination gets to fill in the minutia, Goodkind takes little minds and destroys them, letting them see things that they should never ever see. There is no way to take his descriptions and NOT see it, not have it burned into your mind. I LOATH to think of the day my kids are able to find the books in their library and have their innocence shattered in such a vicious manner.
Anyway, I do like the story, I love Kahlan and so I read it, albeit 6 months behind his "fans".
Hey he's a Fantasy author I have to see what he has to offer right? :-)
Flian
-
I admire Goodkind's chutzpah and conviction. His books, however, suck. Boring boring boring.
And why does he deny that he's a fantasy author? His is. His novels contain major elements of the fantastic. That makes his novels fantasy. Sure, most fantasy is garbage, but so is most other literature. I don't see why anyone should feel guilty for publishing genre fiction.
New rumor to start: Terry Goodkind is actually a woman. Look at his hair, and Terry is a unisex name.
*puts on a dunce hat and sits in the corner*
I'll shut up now.
-
I'm about 2/3rds through Confessor right now. In that book, I came to a realization.
His books are quite entertaining when something is happening. Goodkind does have a talent for writing an action scene and building suspense. His action scenes might not be as 'cool' as Brandon's (You just can't compete with the dimensions that allomancy throws into the mix) but they are fun to read.
However, in his books, when nothing is going on, they are among the most boring books I have read. I'm in the group of people that used to be a big reader, then stopped. I was turned off of books by school mostly. We read old, boring novels and were forced to analyze them for one kind of element or another. In my entire high school career, I read 2 books (including those assigned in English class). Then, with JKR and HP, I was brought back into the wonderful world of reading, realizing that reading can be fun. It's possible to just sit back, and throughly enjoy a great story. Sometimes, Goodkind meets this goal, in other's he doesn't.
Confessor is the only book I can remember reading since highschool that I have been tempted to skip ahead pages simply because I don't care what is going on. When things are happening, it's great, but when nothing is going on he just drudges on and on about things. Two characters will get into an argument about something, and within 2-3 paragraphs into it you'll understand both sides, but he'll just keep repeating himself over and over and carry that on for 5-10 pages. That just isn't interesting to me. In Phantom there was a section of about 40 pages towards the beginning that took me 5 might s to read, simply because each time I went to read it, I literally fell asleep trying to drudge through the mess. Once that section was over, it was easy to read 200+ pages in a single night.
That is kind of how the series has been with me. There are a few things I love, and a few things I hate. I love some of the wizard rules, and have found myself quoting the first rule to multiple people both online and in person. I love the logic he presents in those rules. As I said, his action is also great. Yes, it's very cliche, and the hero always wins, and there are many parts about it to which someone could complain, but none of that bugs me, and I enjoy it. However, I really hate how he crams his philosophy down your throat, and really hate how he sets up situations to make altruism look worse than it is.
Also, I find it a little humorous that as much as he says his books aren't fantasy because "Magic isn't a central part." Yet, he has spent no less then 150 pages in each of the last three books going into great depth about how the magic system works. Providing details that IMO sound fake and no one really cares about. It's almost like he threw it in there just to say "Hey, look, my 'magic' system is based on math and science, thus it's not really 'magical' and so these books aren't fantasy."
Ok, that's enough ranting. I have to go find out what happens to Richard...
-
The first two books of SOL were fine, a bit derivative, the plot a bit to close to Jordan's Wheel of Time, but the action scenes were entertaining. However, starting with the third novel the prolitizing and graphic violance really started to get to me. I came to like fantasy ans Sci-Fi in a strange way I first read Animal farm, 1984, Brave New World, and Anthem, so I don't mind a political diatribe dressed as a fantasy novel. But, Orwell, Huxley, and Rand (at her best) were great writers, their stories can be enjoyed even if you disagree with the philosophical/political points that they were meant to advance. Goodkind on the other hand will never be confused with the three mentioned authors. And that's what really bothers him and why he disassociates himself from the fantasy genre. Knowing his shortcomings as a writer he substitutes graphic detail for quality. Frankly, having studied "Objectivism" as a political philosophy I do not think that Goodkind has even grasped its nuances enough to make his novels particularly good examples of the theory in action. He is quite good at writing porographic scenes depicting rape and war but lakes the finesse required to write a coherent explaination of Objectivism. I would not go out of my way to discourage anyone from reading the first to novels, but if asked to recommend either straight fantasy/sci-fi or political diatribes clothed as fantasy I would recommend literally dozens of authors before Goodkind. Moreover, I would never recommend his novels to anyone under 16, and would warn adults about the graphic nature of his writings.
-
The interview that Brandon is referring to is the reason why I stopped enjoying his books. I have been a member of his message board for years, and the way he responsed to questions asked by true fans (and friends of mine) just disgusted me. I actually did not read his books for, like, years after that because anytime I would try to pick up the book and enjoy the story, my dislike of the author himself ruined it for me. I'm going to try and read Confessor eventually, just because I want to know what happens to Richard and Kahlan, but my love of the characters has sadly diminished after all the preaching that I had to skip over in Naked Empire.
-
I think you're cheating yourself if you skip a good book just because you don't respect the author as a person.
It's the same with any kind of artist. Terry Goodkind seems like a total jackass, but maybe he just has toilet-mouth. He might still be a cool guy to hang with. You never can accurately judge someone until you meet them.
That said, I still see Goodkind's novels as buckets of ordure. I tried to read Wizard's First Rule and Stone of Tears, but I opted for sleep both times.
-
On the plus side, Goodkind tells a hell of a story. His books are exciting, usually fast paced, page turners.
On the down side, for someone who claims Objectivism as such a strong influence, he sure does pilfer a whole lot of ideas, themes, even names from other writers, including Rand herself... Faith of the Fallen is nothing but a rehash of Atlas Shrugged in Goodkind's universe. And there is little point in listing all of the numerous thefts from Jordan.
Brandon Sanderson, on the other hand, is both a big Wheel of Time Fan AND a fantasy author who comes up with his own original ideas, magic systems, etc.
-
@phaz
LOL i'm now about 1/3 of the way through the book, so brain dead and wanting to know what happens I skipped ahead to find out the final fate of Kahlan LOL.
Some of Goodkinds examples and such are so ludicris that its hard to digest... um "ban fire" WTF was he smoking? It doesnt even make a good compelling argument you know. Richards bro standing up there... "All fire will be banned because a house burned, and its the debil" um yeah ok, darn near lost me on that note.
Anyway you cannot compare Goodkind with Authors of the magnitude of Jordan and presumably Brandon (havent read ya yet sorry but I will I promise, even my son knowing you will write book 12 of WOT wants to see what you have :-) )...
As noted above, Goodkind is good at describing war and rape, but he fails to write with the intimate intricate nuances of a master writer. Jordan can write war, and intimacies, and rape if he likes, and he did... BUTTTTTT it was written in a way so smooth that anyone could read it and get vivid images that let you decide how far to go. Dumai's well for instance. If Goodkind had written that, it would have been a detailed vision of the visceral nature of the injuries including in depth discussion of a piece of bone stuck to the tree off yonder. I find myself joyful that Confessor is the last book in the SOT series and that I will never have cause to pick up another Goodkind book. If I had not fallen in love with Kahlan and Richard, i'd not have made it this far.
-
I read the first 4 or so books of the Sword of Truth series, but gave up on the rest because I didn't enjoy the amount of philosophical rants in the books. Now that I've read that essay and seen how manic he is about fantasy, and how it's crap, I won't read any more of his books. I read fantasy because I love the stories. I like to think, and don't mind some moralistic/ethical speeches, but to say that his books are not fantasy because he presents more depth and more ideas is idiotic. They are pure fantasy. He takes the poor, backwoods kid with no parents and turns him into the hero of the world. What in that is not fantasy?
-
I have to say I had absolutely no idea what an ass Goodkind was. Shocking! Having said that though it doesn't take away from the words in his books. Very few people can write an action scene like Goodkind does. Kahlan is also one of my favorite female characters ever. Books 1,2 and 6 are absolutely fantastic in my opinion. Books 6 has an unbelievable climax when he reveals what he's created and sways one of the main antagonists in the story to Richard's way of thinking. So powerful I got goosebumps all over. Also the scene when Kahlan performs the actions needed to gain Richard entrance to the Temple of the Winds is so revolting that it was hard to read, but it led to a great climax (pun not intended) as well.
It may not take away from what he's already written, but I may not be able to pick up his future books after having read that interview and some other distasteful stuff I've found on the internet.
-
If you've only read up to book 6, you won't be missing anything by quitting on Goodkind now. The last 3 books (9,10,11) were absolutely horrendous. Bad writing. Bad story. Bad dialogue. 7 & 8 are a lot of deus ex machina. In essence, give up now or waste hours of good time. Consider yourself warned.