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.
