I want info about Goodkind/Brandon's comments

[Shuez]

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?

[EUOL]

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. 

[EUOL]

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.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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?

[Skar]

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.

[Spriggan]

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.

[dawncawley]

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.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[EUOL]

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. 

[stacer]

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."

[Shuez]

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  :

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...

[WriterDan]

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.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Oh man, I just saw a link to this forum from Theoryland, and it's cracking me up.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I'm... frightened.

[Tekiel]

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.