Terry Goodkind is (still) a Jackass

.

Wow so much hate. But yeah, an old friend of mine pushed some Goodkind down my throat in university. I think I made it to about book 5 (hey, I used to read almost anything that qualified as fantasy), and lost a lot of respect for my friend's taste in the process. I quizzed him about it and it seemed he was into the darker setting, the suffering, and the violence in the book when compared to lighter fantasy settings. Hmm.. anyway, I prefer David Gemmell for my "switch brain off" fantasy reading :).

I wish I could stay and chat, but I have a dinner and movie planned tonight. I expect at least 8 more pages of heated debate by the time I return.

Let's carry on shall we?

Certis wrote:

Fired.

It's too bad AnimeJ already has a tag. There were about a half-dozen contenders there.

I read the Sword of Truth series like AnimeJ did right up until Goodkind punched me in the face with the book about how communism never works and capitalism solves everything, forever

This. This exactly. That was where I dropped the series.

He doesn't just hint at things; he slaps you in the face. Then he hits you over the head with a board. Then he pounds on you with a chair for awhile. At the rate it was going, I figured within a book or two, he'd be using very muscular men wielding ball peen hammers, just in case you Missed The Point.

Protagonists that can never be wrong are boring. And he and his wife are evil as hell. On one of the boards I read, I saw a fairly long quote from the book, which I can't find now. Rough summary: Kahlan is head of some army out in the boonies somewhere. They're about to do something difficult. She tells the army that it will be very demanding, and if they don't want to participate, they're free to go.

Some people take her up on that. She smiles, gives them food, bids them goodbye -- and then sends her men after them in the night to kill them all. Seriously.

And these are the supposed good guys!

Aha, I found it. It's a little more complex than I remembered, but it's still pretty goddamn evil.

In another spot, she orders a young soldier tortured to death for sneaking into her war camp and killing one of her wizards.

There are many more examples on "The Goodkind Parodies".

*Legion* wrote:
Certis wrote:

Fired.

It's too bad AnimeJ already has a tag. There were about a half-dozen contenders there.

Malor wrote:

Aha, I found it. It's a little more complex than I remembered, but it's still pretty goddamn evil.

In another spot, she orders a young soldier tortured to death for sneaking into her war camp and killing one of her wizards.

There are many more examples on "The Goodkind Parodies".

Holy crap, he must have gone the way of Lucas, I don't remember the first one being that bad. (Maybe my brain just blocked it off to save my faith in writing.)

Outside of that, I don't like the books... so I don't read them. Now, I'm up for literary discussion on why I don't like the books, and curiousity about the redeeming features for other people. It's him being an asshat that makes me just not like him. Artist and work are separate in my eyes. But it's a damned rare individual who manages such epic asshattery in both art and deed.

I stopped reading after Temple of the Winds as well. I read a little of Book 5 that a friend of mine had but I stopped. Anyone catch Legend of the Seeker on TV?

Anyway I do agree with what some of you are saying partially. Debate is what's important. People who say one thing is the best over something else and won't hear or participate in an open discussion are annoying and hard to tolerate. And in the books he does go beyond writing mechanisms for plot to preaching outright. I've never read the last books in the series but my brother listened to the unabridged audio books of them and from what he's told me it really does just go downhill.

I've only seen the first 5 episodes so far but I do like Legend of the Seeker that's been adapted from the books. I recomend giving that a shot. Hopefully it will make changes to the series that improve it.

I enjoyed the sword of truth series, though toward the end I did stop buying the hard-copies and only casually bought the paperbacks... I still have the last book to go. His books are full of interesting characters faced with some brutal decisions, and he challenges his readers to re-think their definitions of good and evil / right and wrong against the backdrop of a fantasy setting.

Is the author an egocentric douche-bag himself? Probably. He certainly isn't helping himself with his interview skills.

Does whether or not he is a douche inform my enjoyment of his writing? Not at this point. I already know I enjoy his work. And I hope the negative publicity Goodkind is getting in this thread doesn't keep someone else who'd enjoy this series from getting into it.

What amazes me most about Goodkind's books is the sheer number of people who keep on reading them despite the fact that they stopped wanting to a long time ago. I am included on this list.

I'll count myself lucky to escape, then...

I was going through a phase where I would read any fantasy I could find, and the thicker the better. After making my way through the first few Jordan books, and Tad Williams, I remember picking up WFR and throwing it down after about 20 pages because he makes some lame gag about shrinking the villiagers' balls or something. It was goofy enough to turn me off the whole rest of the book.

(sorry if I've repeated this story... the thread's been around for a long time...)

I read the first few Sword of Truth books but didn't make it any further than that. I honestly was too young to pick up on most of the preaching, but I simply grew to be disgusted by the books' endless sexual violence. I still think that the first few books had some interesting concepts scattered here and there, primarily with regard to the Confessors and the mechanics of the Sword of Truth itself, but they were drowned out by the constant rape scenarios.

Right now, I'm somewhat torn. I quit after Temple of the Winds. On the one hand I've always finished a series that I've read multiple books in. And I have a morbid curiosity to find out what happens in the end. On the other hand, I usually end up really depressed after reading these books and don't get any enjoyment out of them after the first one. Add to that the generally negative response from Goodjers I respect (and random people who post before taking a good hard look and the GWJ CoC(k(tee-hee))).

So it's Morbid Curiosity vs. Didn't like the others.

Basically, I want a more detailed Wikipedia entry so I can put it behind me.

I hadn't even realized he'd finished the series. Usually once an author gets past 3 books, there's no end in sight.

I just started 'Confessor' and it is with mixed feelings really. This how I read it right now : I skip the parts that are a repeat of what happened before. Skip the feelings he is describing over and over again in the same paragraph. But I will keeping reading, as his description of magic is quite cool actually and his plots are interesting to say the least.

Sometimes I am not sure who he is writing about : Richard and Kahlan or this writer that fell in love with his English teacher back then and needs to show this in an almost endless series of books.

Mex wrote:

Why is Objectivism so idiotic and wrong?

I've only heard about it from a bodybuilder (Mike Mentzer) in a book, and it seemed sort of like a very rational kind of philosophy, but I honestly haven't delved too much into that.

The basic idea of Objectivism is that private enterprise and innovation are preferable to government and committee-run establishments. A strong objectivist would believe that welfare was a waste of resources, that by taking resources and money away from industrious businesses and people and giving it to the less industrious, that you are performing a net negative. If the money had stayed with the people that "earned" it they would have continued being industrious and innovative and the invention or structure etc etc etc that resulted would be better for society than the charity was.

I myself am a fan of a bit of objectivism, but I don't know a huge amount about it, maybe if I dug deeper I would like it less, but like with any ideology, when taken to extremes it gets sorta shakey sorta fast. That's when "private enterprise is preferable to government" becomes "private enterprise is the source of all light and happiness, while government-run charities are the source of the world's evil and ills." Apparently Ayn Rand is a bit of a jerk about it, but I don't really know, only thing of hers that I've read was the Fountainhead, which I quite liked. (Barring the "consensual rape" scene, for lack of a better descriptor, not entirely sure what the hell that was about.)

I think the best and (pithiest) summation of Objectivism is "Ayn Rand doesn't have a philosophy. She has justifications." She decided that capitalism is the besterest, built backwards from that and ended up with something that's complete nonsense epistemologically and has no relation to how human beings actually behave.

It's pretty fascinating though, both for how easily people get seduced by it, and for the cult (proper cult, with all that that entails) that grew up around her.

It becomes a bit worrying when you realize that someone who bought her rubbish wholesale got to a position where he wielded massive control over the American economy for decades though.

Maybe I just enjoyed the books (or, at least, the general story) because I never paid a cent to read them. I think I'd be a bit miffed if I actually spent cash on them. You guys have heard of a library, right? It's like piracy, only legal.

There are many parts of this story that truly and utterly suck. You can pretty much skip book 5 completely, as long as someone tells you he has a brother and sister that are immune to magic, and apparently his family is genetically coded to be either a saint, or a sadistic psychopath. The one where they come across the pacifist group is another book you can skip, but I can't remember which book that is.

I did finish the series, I even re-read it once (though, skipping the books above, because I found no reason to revisit them). I don't remember how it ends. At this point, I don't much care. I was working a night-shift job, with very little to do, and it kept me busy.

But in my opinion, the general story does have a few decent parts that are entertaining enough to read. I know I tend to have lower standards in most things, but a book is a book. It's not like your choosing you're overlord here.

nd apparently his family is genetically coded to be either a saint, or a sadistic psychopath.

I think they're all coded to be psychopaths, but some get to be called saints.

PurEvil wrote:

But in my opinion, the general story does have a few decent parts that are entertaining enough to read. I know I tend to have lower standards in most things, but a book is a book. It's not like your choosing you're overlord here.

Ironically, the Overlord from Overlord games is a better hero than Richard.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:

It becomes a bit worrying when you realize that someone who bought her rubbish wholesale got to a position where he wielded massive control over the American economy for decades though.

Objectivism is just a fancy word for intellectual hedonism in my book. Greenspan is a perfect example of the flaw within it: If you believe that your selfishness is the key to doing what is right, you can easily discount everything rational on the basis it conflicts with what you want. Greenspan wanted to be Fed chairman, so it must have been the right thing to do.

Someone who believes in a free market going to work for the fed is akin to a animal rights activist going to work in a slaughterhouse. Then, when thing don't just magically go right, he blames that which he turned his back on for the convenience of Objectivism.

It's hard for me to buy the free markets and libertarians ruined the world spiel. The marked has never been free, and everybody but libertarians have been in power because the populace has been too busy laughing at them to take them seriously. The hegemony seems to have completely blanked their involvement in this crisis from the public's collective memory.

I think Rand is a terrible writer, and if Goodkind's writing is anything like hers, (as the descriptions and excerpts lead me to believe that it is) I'm better off not reading them. Anthem was great, in most part because it was short. It didn't allow for her to indulge herself. Fountainhead was decent, and my best guess about the "consensual rape", is that is some sort of metaphor about people acceptance of the status quo, strained as it may be. Atlas Shrugged is a piece of crap. I picked up and put down this book many times since I bought it (age 14), but only recently deiced that no one really needs to read it. The point is made in the first few chapters, and then repeatedly hammered on for the next 800 pages.

It seems like Goodkind's books would just be Atlas Shrugged with swords. Swords are way cooler than trains though....

And if you read Rand's "philosophical" books, save yourself some hassle and get yourself fitted for a robe and a poison Kool-Aid cup now.

Atomicvideohead wrote:
PurEvil wrote:

But in my opinion, the general story does have a few decent parts that are entertaining enough to read. I know I tend to have lower standards in most things, but a book is a book. It's not like your choosing you're overlord here.

Ironically, the Overlord from Overlord games is a better hero than Richard.

You, my friend, were playing it wrong.

Nosferatu wrote:
Atomicvideohead wrote:
PurEvil wrote:

But in my opinion, the general story does have a few decent parts that are entertaining enough to read. I know I tend to have lower standards in most things, but a book is a book. It's not like your choosing you're overlord here.

Ironically, the Overlord from Overlord games is a better hero than Richard.

You, my friend, were playing it wrong.

LOL qft

PAR

Nosferatu wrote:
Atomicvideohead wrote:
PurEvil wrote:

But in my opinion, the general story does have a few decent parts that are entertaining enough to read. I know I tend to have lower standards in most things, but a book is a book. It's not like your choosing you're overlord here.

Ironically, the Overlord from Overlord games is a better hero than Richard.

You, my friend, were playing it wrong.

No, even playing it right Overlord wins. Why? At least he's honest and up front about where he stands on the good-evil spectrum. "I'm evil, I'm not going to trick myself into thinking I'm good."

While that fired dude displayed a massive lack of decent social behavior, is it possible that his last post was intentionally written in Goodkind's style? I.e., "I have moral clarity, so anyone who disagrees is necessarily evil"? Or am I too generous assuming that someone couldn't be THAT much of a tool without having their tongue in their cheek?

If I haven't mentioned this before, I'm in the "Terry is an arsehat" camp, but I did enjoy his first few books so I understand why smart, decent, and well-groomed folk might still like him. Plus: some of my favorite authors are arseholes.

Oso wrote:

Or am I too generous assuming that someone couldn't be THAT much of a tool without having their tongue in their cheek?

It's hard for me to believe you work on a refdesk.

so he's pompous AND preachy? No wonder I've never read his books. Pompous I can handle if the writing is good, when your writing becomes preachy it goes out the window.

Oso wrote:

While that fired dude displayed a massive lack of decent social behavior, is it possible that his last post was intentionally written in Goodkind's style? I.e., "I have moral clarity, so anyone who disagrees is necessarily evil"? Or am I too generous assuming that someone couldn't be THAT much of a tool without having their tongue in their cheek?

Are you implying that our overlord should switch over to the demon avatar and rename himself Certis Rahl of G'Oodger? Maybe instead of fired, he should have become "Mord Sith's Pet."

mrwynd wrote:

so he's pompous AND preachy? No wonder I've never read his books. Pompous I can handle if the writing is good, when your writing becomes preachy it goes out the window.

Honestly, the story is only bearable if you skip a lot of the crappy writing. I really believe what I imagined as I read would be considered brain-dead drivel by Goodkind, but I also think it'd be a much better series. I got to a point where I only took Goodkind's writings as (mostly bad) suggestions as to how the story should go. I think that's about the only way you can really enjoy the series, or at least make it to the end of it.