Terry Goodkind is (still) a Jackass

Slightly off-topic, but can one think Goodkind an ass and still enjoy "Legend of the Seeker" for it's sheer schlock factor? My roommates are calling hypocrite on me...

Old Man P π wrote:

Slightly off-topic, but can one think Goodkind an ass and still enjoy "Legend of the Seeker" for it's sheer schlock factor? My roommates are calling hypocrite on me...

Certis seems to enjoy Legend of the Seeker, and he's the one who started the thread.

Old Man P π wrote:

Slightly off-topic, but can one think Goodkind an ass and still enjoy "Legend of the Seeker" for it's sheer schlock factor? My roommates are calling hypocrite on me...

I say "hells yeah". Lance Armstrong is a tremendous ass, but I still watch DVDs of his Tour de France wins. Phillip Roth is a huge ass, but I love his novels. [insert name of sports star] is a horse's ass but is magic on the field/floor/ice.

Personally, I really like the show. My girlfriend and I refer to it as "abs and cleavage".

Personally, I'd like to see a cross section of people who have read and enjoyed ANY D&D, Warhammer, ST, SW or some other mass print appeal novel, yet seem to hate Goodkind for being a bad author. Basically, it's the pot calling the kettle black; those books are the Sci-Fi/Fantasy equivalent of the Harlequin romance novel for crying out loud.

There's a difference between bad writing and bad writing alongside preaching. The Forgotten Realms/Dragonlance novels, Star Wars books, &c are by and large popcorn reads with passable writing (at best) but they're also simple action stories not trying to "say" something about the world at large. R.A. Salvatore never tried to explain some half-baked philosophy to me or show me how this point of view is right and this one is wrong. He wrote some awesome fight scenes and some weird worlds using interesting if rather unoriginal characters.

Goodkind has that too, mind, but by the later part of the series it's sandwiched between so much Philosophy 101 and long, dull speeches that I simply couldn't be bothered to go spelunking to find it.

bnpederson wrote:

There's a difference between bad writing and bad writing alongside preaching. The Forgotten Realms/Dragonlance novels, Star Wars books, &c are by and large popcorn reads with passable writing (at best) but they're also simple action stories not trying to "say" something about the world at large. R.A. Salvatore never tried to explain some half-baked philosophy to me or show me how this point of view is right and this one is wrong. He wrote some awesome fight scenes and some weird worlds using interesting if rather unoriginal characters.

Goodkind has that too, mind, but by the later part of the series it's sandwiched between so much Philosophy 101 and long, dull speeches that I simply couldn't be bothered to go spelunking to find it.

I still don't get why people get so hung up on the philosophy crap. Even Salvatore, who IMO is king of the trashy scifi/fantasy novel, does it. The Drizzt books are nothing but philosophy and moral ethics buried in horribly written fantasy. Has that stopped me from reading them half a dozen times each? Not in the least. And honestly, I find it more obvious there than in any of Goodkind's stuff if for no other reason than the actual content is that much more obscure in Goodkind's works unless you're really looking for it, or somewhat knowledgeable on the subject(Ethics 101 is the end of my knowledge on the subject). I mean, look at Drizzt. He's a good hearted person born to an evil family, throwing himself on the sacrificial alter in a lame attempt to atone for his people's sins against the world.

But what do I know? I'm just an anti-intellectual who hates everything that is good and right in the world, and live only to defend horrible, horrible people.

Well I can't speak for "people" but personally I don't like the meandering lectures about What Is Man because it's freaking boring. Let's look at Drizzt, he is indeed what you described. But most of his "atoning" consists of kicking the ass of his own species and anyone else who comes his way with evil intentions. You get a half page of "Please, we don't have to fight" followed by a chapter of battles using magical bracers, swords made of fire, sentient swords, armor forged by the gods or whatever else is in vogue. The average book is around, what, three to four hundred pages?

Compare that to Goodkind, whose book I remember the most was when Richard was trapped in a city full of Bene Gesserit/Aes Sedai/whatever. Going to the city had one, maybe two good fight scenes with the rest of it being Richard whining about his collar and how much he hated it and how noble it was for him to do this despite hating it. Inside the city it was chapter upon chapter of talking about how much the city sucked, the people who ran the city sucked, the people who were living in the city sucked, and wow Richard totally threw off the whole thing just by existing and knowing himself. Perhaps three quick fight scenes with some monsters before it was over. This ratio is about normal for the series with the average book clocking in around eight hundred to a thousand pages.

I'll gladly admit they're both hack writers, but Salvatore's a hack writer who manages to put together a fast paced, action packed book with some half-baked philosophy while Goodkind is a hack writer who manages to put together a meandering tome of half-baked philosophy with some action interspersed.

So that's why I can like Trashy Author A but dislike Trashy Author B; they write differently, despite both being trashy.

Well, I never made it far enough into Goodkind's stuff to see the really preachy bits, so I can only imagine. But I'll just say that while I occasionally enjoy brain candy (yes, even Drizzt), I found Goodkind to be so actively bad that it was on a completely different level. There's a difference between "I feel a little guilty reading this crap" and "this makes me want to RIP MY EYES OUT OF MY SKULL."

A good example would be David Eddings, actually. His first series was kind of okay (the Belgariad). Second series (the Mallorean).. eh... starting to repeat himself a bit here, still fun. Third series (the Elenium?)... hey!... this is the same thing, only the character have different names. Okay, I'm not going to read any more now.

Now here's the thing--that's not the bad part with Eddings yet. The bad part was when I picked up The Redemption of Althalus, since it was supposed to be a one-shot, and I figured I might as well see if his writing had improved since back in the day. Same characters. Same plot. Same cardboard cutouts of gods. Only somehow, it was all worse. I read the whole book through, because I could not imagine how it could fail to get better before the end it was so bad. Sadly, it didn't get better. Urk. It raises my gorge just thinking about it.

Goodkind turned me off to a degree somewhere between "schlock" (Belgariad) and before "complete fecal matter" (Althalus). It was poorly written, the characters weren't doing anything interesting, and as I recall there was this really odious torture + sex sequence, etc. (And note: I've read a number of novels that have things that could be described as "torture + sex sequence", but this is the only one I've ever seen that I'd apply "odious" to. I wish I could explain why, but I honestly don't want to read the book again to refresh my memory. I enjoy things that make me face situations I find morally reprehensible, and that make me identify with characters that make me feel ooky. I enjoy a little SM mixed in with my sex scenes sometimes. All I can assume was that the torture sequence had no redeeming qualities whatsoever, so I was offended by such a device being used purely as filler.)

Anyway, Goodkind's first book... the one before he started to get preachy? Yeah, I'd consider it to be in the top three worst books I've ever read.

And I probably read at least 50 totally schlocky books a year (among the other couple hundred less-schlocky or non-schlocky ones.)

Eddings rules! But I have to agree that he is repetitive in his way of writing. Still witty though.
Here is a good writer for all of you: http://www.saradouglass.com/overview.html
Axis Trilogy amongst them and the Crucible series is also a great read.

Back on topic though, yes, Terry Goodkind is (still) a Jackass
But I am almost done Confessor and that's that.

I actually enjoyed the first few books. Sadly I have the habit of sticking with things I've started rather than listening to my instincts and stopping when things get bad. I never walk out of the cinema, always watch DVDs to the end etc.

Because of this I ended up reading Goodkind's series through to the end. Two of the books are nothing but preach and it's very badly done, his arguments are completely one-sided and just repeat themselves over and over, it's done in a way that even if you agree with the argument you still find yourself wanting to argue with him.

The last few books were a slight improvement but I'd never recommend them to anyone. I can't blame anyone but myself for reading them though.

I read these starting out in like 8th grade. I enjoyed the first couple books, but as the series progressed, it got to be pretty boring. I think that last one I read was the one where he became an artist. I think the series lost me as soon as Richard sent his flying dragon/bat/lizard thing away. That guy was awesome.

Thowky wrote:

Sadly I have the habit of sticking with things I've started rather than listening to my instincts and stopping when things get bad. I never walk out of the cinema, always watch DVDs to the end etc. .

I have this problem, too. Morbid curiosity drove me through the fourth book. And after that whore's breasts were sliced off, I think I knew I was going to finish the book and stop there.

Hah! "Wizard's First Rule" popped up as a Kindle Deal of the Day today and I can never remember which Terry is a jackass, Goodkind or Brooks. Thankfully, a "Terry jackass" search in the ol' GWJ searchbar yields this helpful thread :). Pass.

In honour of this thread resurrection, I shall pull my own and finish season 2 of Legend of the Seeker.

There's a thread for that.

I read through most of the series before I finally said "thats it, I am done". I knew from the beginning that his writing style was pretty basic, but in the first few books I did appreciate his imagination. I felt he had begun a pretty solid, albeit rote, fantasy series. However, each book became less and less interesting/engaging/competent than the previous one. I will also admit that at some point I researched him and found that insanely ridiculous usa today article that was so illuminating into his character and it may have tainted my opinion of the series (seriously, I wondered briefly if he wasn't just f*cking with the interviewer. His answers are almost comic. Sadly, I read some more interviews and......yeah.) However, in all fairness, I would be willing to bet he didn't start out his writing career as an objectivist loon. Otherwise, we probably would have had all the inane babble of later books right there at the beginning. I have found that Ayn Rand has that effect on some people. people with "simplistic" worldviews tend to embrace it because they see it as a justification of their own selfishness. so you take a thoughtless jerk with no empathy and read them a few lines of rand and all of a sudden they are tireless defenders of individualism and liberty.

Sorry, Terry...I hate to be the one to tell you.....You are not a great writer, what little imaginative talent you had at the beginning has long been spent and your "philosophy" is a sham.....something you would know if you kept to your education(ref. Today article).

While I realize that by commenting in here I am bringing back this thread yet again, I wanted to tell everyone how entertained I was. I searched Goodkind vs. Eddings online today just to see what people thought of the two authors. Little did I know that there was such a profound hatred for this man! I'm a 28 year-old teacher and mother of two. Fantasy is my guilty pleasure. Sometimes I spend too much time during the day with kids. I just wanted to say that I am in the same camp as many of you. I read the first book and thought it was pretty good but then proceeded to read the following (1,000? 4,000? I couldn't keep track) books just because I felt like I had to find out what happened. As a result, I can't tell you how it ended. Though I do have to admit, I did like David Eddings Belgariad series but the Sparhawk series (can't remember what it was called) was only so-so and I read it out of loyalty to the author that I thought had won my heart.

I have to say that my absolute favorite comment was the one about the library being legal piracy...

Thank you, each and everyone of you for keeping me ridiculously entertained! I felt you all deserved to hear it!

If it helps, he seems to be slowly turning against the objectivist beliefs.

There was the rant on his own site that "real writers are born writers." This is absolutely not in the objectivist point of view.

A lot of the promotional material for The Legend of Magda Searus went off the rails. The Legend of Magda Searus and now The Third Kingdom have a new plot hock mirroring the "born writers" one. An idea about "Makers," who are born with an innate need plus ability to create things was introduced. If Richard's amazing plethora of new talents looked like absurd objectivist theory back then, it has a magical pre-ordained not-objectivist reason now.

The Omen Machine was just badly written. It was almost like he wanted to write a Young Adult novel while keeping every single one of his former tropes alive and well. Yeah. THOSE tropes. The Third Kingdom went a lot better but still continued with the usual Goodkind plot elements.

I really did like The Legend of Magda Searus and The Third Kingdom. Terry Goodkind really is going into new territory now. Plus, whether he admits it or not, he's turning away from the objectivist inspiration that fueled his first series.

Arise again! Seems like Terry hasn't improved as a human being. Surprise!

I thought of this thread when this news dropped today. Glad to see its return.

Reading back though, Certis used to call Karla Hoochie?

Wow, whoever necroed this thread should be crowned the Lich King.

I used to like Goodkind years ago back in my libertarian phase, but he seems pretty irrelevant in the age of George RR Martin and big sweeping fantasies. Is this guy still a big name in certain circles or is he a desperate has-been?

FWIW if you want non- ragey dude fantasy, I highly recommend either Carol Berg or Robin Hobb. I’ve taken writing classes with both of these authors and they are as talented as they are wonderful people.

"The bird let out a slow chicken cackle. It sounded like a chicken, but in her heart she knew it wasn’t. In that instant, she completely understood the concept of a chicken that was not a chicken. This looked like a chicken, like most of the Mud People’s chickens. But this was no chicken. This was evil manifest."

Is a thing. That he wrote.

Read his first book.. Never finished it.

God, I thought it was awful.

jdzappa wrote:

Wow, whoever necroed this thread should be crowned the Lich King.

I used to like Goodkind years ago back in my libertarian phase, but he seems pretty irrelevant in the age of George RR Martin and big sweeping fantasies. Is this guy still a big name in certain circles or is he a desperate has-been?

FWIW if you want non- ragey dude fantasy, I highly recommend either Carol Berg or Robin Hobb. I’ve taken writing classes with both of these authors and they are as talented as they are wonderful people.

That is super cool, I love Robin Hobb.

ColdForged wrote:

Arise again! Seems like Terry hasn't improved as a human being. Surprise!

That cover looks...fine? Not sure what he thinks makes it so terrible.
*Personally, if I had one minor criticism to make of the artwork, it's that it has Terry Goodkind's name on the cover.

Wait...Is it because the powerful looking woman isn't being violently sexual assaulted? That's usually more his style, from what I remember of his books.

Never knew he was such a jerk. The cover looks like typical fantasy stuff, not sure what he expected. Even after he gets called out he goes right back to trolling.

He did eventually apologize to the artist.

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/02...

Still, what a dick.

Gotta love this tidbit that someone in those comments linked from TV tropes:

"Soul of the Fire" describes a minority group that keeps itself in power by controlling the schools and teaching everyone in their society that they were the victim of a horrible injustice in the past and are therefore owed a great debt by the "evil" majority (and the horrible injustice may not have actually happened in the first place). They used this (along with being moneylenders who control the economy) to take control of the entire country during a crisis. Parallels to real-world groups are left as an exercise to the reader.

Damn...

While the art on the cover is rather generic (which tends to be the case for book covers anyway), it's still pretty good. Not quite as good as the artist's other works (check out his website, he's got some pretty good stuff), but definitely not "laughably bad" as Goodkind purported.

Goodkind is a jackass and unsurprisingly handled it poorly but it’s quite possible to have great artwork and still be a horrible cover if it has nothing to do with the characters. Happens all the time because the publishers don’t care enough to get it right. Drove me nuts as a kid.