Tell me about Terry`s Goodkind books.

[Crothian]

Stone of Tears copied Jordan so much I'm surprised he got it published. Collars for male magic users? Dark Sisters? A group of female spellcasters? Magic using men who become uncontrollable? The Keeper of the Underworld? Please.

Are groups of female caster really that uncommon? Keeper of the Underwolrd is common in many myths. Dark Sisters, again common theme. Magic men being uncontrolible...not as common but many stories of magic being uncontroliable so that's not that far to go. And collars for people is an idea anyone who's seen a dog can come up with. At most I'd call it coincidence.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I enjoy Goodkinds books way more then I do Jordans. Goodkind isn't the best writer for sure but I like his creativity and always felt people's complaints about the S&M were really over done.

I'm not going to suggest that your opinion is wrong, as that's obviously impossible. But I must ask whether your opinion of Jordan's novels now might not be excessively weighted by his later works?

I ask this because IMO, Jordan's first four novels were excellent, with The Great Hunt being one of the best fantasy novels I've ever read. Unfortunately the series degenerates to such a degree that I almost felt insulted reading them (until I stopped reading them, anyway.) So great is my annoyance with the later books that I often find myself about to jump on the Jordan hate-wagon, before forcibly reminding myself that he has written some really excellent novels.

While I don't agree with all of your points (I've enjoyed most of the books in the series, and thought Faith of the Fallen was almost as good as Wizard's First Rule), I would just like to thank you for giving an objective appraisal of the series rather than the generic "Goodkind is teh suxx0r. Martin r00lz!" post that pops up seemingly every time a thread mentions Terry Goodkind.

Which one is Faith of the Fallen? I don't have access to my collection right now, so I can't just go to the bookshelf and read the flap to refresh my memory, sadly.

Thanks for the compliment. Sometimes I won't post to these types of discussions, since making such a post requires a lot of time and thought to be worthwhile, but I had the time, and as you mentioned Goodkind was getting a serious bashing that I felt was unwarranted. I've seen a lot of Jordan vs. Eddings threads go the same way and I wind up getting roped in to talk about the pros of Eddings.

Stone of Tears copied Jordan so much I'm surprised he got it published. Collars for male magic users? Dark Sisters? A group of female spellcasters? Magic using men who become uncontrollable? The Keeper of the Underworld? Please. One of these things wouldn't be bad, wo wouldn't get picked up on my radar, but all of them? Might as well put Robert Jordan's name on the cover too. Even the name of the book is stolen from Jordan. Despite all this, the book was passable.

Well, Jordan didn't exactly create a lot of these concepts himself. If the Keeper of the Underworld is a ripoff of the Dark One, then the Dark One is a ripoff of Sauron. If the Sisters of the Light are a ripoff of the Aes Sedai, then the Aes Sedai are a ripoff of Wicca. Most of these things are very, very old concepts that were around long before Robert Jordan.

That being said, I had a bit of trouble with the Rada'Han and the a'dam myself. It seemed a bit too specific. A bit too similar. Especially considering the similarity between the way Richard was treated wearing the Rada'Han, and the way Egwene was treated wearing an a'dam.

Even so, these are all incidentals, and not, IMO, justification enough to actually list Robert Jordan as a co-author.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Magic men being uncontrolible...not as common but many stories of magic being uncontroliable so that's not that far to go.

It should be noted that in Goodkind's universe, magic men aren't uncontrollable. If not trained properly, their magic kills them. In the series' ancient past, an older wizard could train a younger wizard, and there was no problem. The problem came about when the older wizards stopped training the younger ones. Some wizards realized that they needed a reliable source of wizard training, so they built the Palace of the Prophets and installed the Sisters of the Light there. Unfortunately, the Sisters only have the female gift, which is different (and weaker) than the male gift. Women training men was difficult, and couldn't be accomplished without the Rada'Han. It was an imperfect solution to the problem of wizards not training their own. Eventually, wizards trained by the Sisters had their Rada'Hans removed, and were perfectly functional and self-controlled.

The only exception to this was Nathan Rahn. He's a prophet, and the Sisters decided that he couldn't be allowed to roam free in the world, changing fate willy-nilly on his own judgment. They decided that they themselves were imminently more qualified to decide what was best for everyone.

Sorry for the long dissertation. Just wanted to point out that in actuality, the way that male magicians are treated in the two series is actually quite different.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Which one is Faith of the Fallen? I don't have access to my collection right now, so I can't just go to the bookshelf and read the flap to refresh my memory, sadly.

Faith of the Fallen (Book six in the series) is the one where Richard is kidnapped by a Sister of the Dark and taken to the capital of Jageng's Empire in the Old World. While there, he witnesses the severe oppression of the people and sets out on a mission to destroy the Imperial Order from within by spreading the values of liberty and self-reliance to the downtrodden masses.

This Terry Goodkind book really divides his readers: either they love it or they hate it. Its detractors consider it a criticism of communism disguised as a fantasy novel (which is a valid argument, considering that the Imperial Order's treatment of its citizens bears a strong resemblence to Stalinist Russia), but fans of the book like its message that no tyrannical regime can survive when people embrace the idea of freedom.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

This Terry Goodkind book really divides his readers: either they love it or they hate it. Its detractors consider it a criticism of communism disguised as a fantasy novel (which is a valid argument, considering that the Imperial Order's treatment of its citizens bears a strong resemblence to Stalinist Russia), but fans of the book like its message that no tyrannical regime can survive when people embrace the idea of freedom.

Hm. I actually thought it was pretty much an endorsement of Objectivism- it had so many themes and plot similarities to "The Fountainhead."

It was actually one of my least favorite novels, due to that, but I liked many parts of it nevertheless.

I'd say "Blood of the Fold" was probably my least favorite, overall, simply because it seemed to have so little to actually do with the Blood of the Fold (who I thought would have been better used as a contrast in heroism against Richard, rather than just being the "Bwahaha! I'm evilll!" villains they ended up mostly being).

Like some (evidently very few) people in this thread, I enjoy the Sword of Truth series, particularly the first novel (Wizard's First Rule). It wasn't quite as black and white/good vs. evil as many fantasy novels, focusing instead on the truth and the various shadings of such that come about. I think the characters are very interesting and have a lot of depth- particularly Richard Rahl- and there are a lot of wonderful and interesting takes on standard fantasy conventions in the books.

That being said, I can certainly see where criticism of rehashed plots (Richard and Kahlan separated, new and previously unknown threat), as well as drawing out the series in Jordan fashion come from. Many of the newer novels do seem to be 'padding' as it were, and prolonging a series. In some ways, though, they are different- the Old Empire/Jagang story has been ongoing for some time now, as opposed to the "wow! Where'd this threat come from suddenly?" plots that appeared in some of the earlier novels.

In any case, count me down as one who would highly recommend reading the first novel, and then deciding for yourself whether to continue or not.

 

[Desdichado]

While I don't agree with all of your points (I've enjoyed most of the books in the series, and thought Faith of the Fallen was almost as good as Wizard's First Rule), I would just like to thank you for giving an objective appraisal of the series rather than the generic "Goodkind is teh suxx0r. Martin r00lz!" post that pops up seemingly every time a thread mentions Terry Goodkind.

What are you talking about? The only reason anyone's talking about Martin at all is because a bunch of Goodkind defenders brought him up! Nobody has made a "Goodkind is teh suxx0r. Martin r00lz!" post in this entire thread.

Also, as Pants said--the complaints about Goodkind have mostly focused on the fact that he's a lousy writer who can't do dialogue, can't draw characters, and can't find a decent plot. Lord Pendragon's post about the charming romance made me wonder if we read the same book at all. A romance with two completely unlikeable and unbelievable characters is not charming.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Also, as Pants said--the complaints about Goodkind have mostly focused on the fact that he's a lousy writer who can't do dialogue, can't draw characters, and can't find a decent plot. Lord Pendragon's post about the charming romance made me wonder if we read the same book at all. A romance with two completely unlikeable and unbelievable characters is not charming.

Apparently some people (like myself) found the characters likeable. Actually it is the fact that I have enjoyed the characters in this series that has kept me reading it. Obviously you don't agree, and that's fine; different strokes for different folks and all (should I have used that phrase in a thread with so many references to masturbation?).

One thing to say to the O.P. about these books. They are a light, quick read, so if you aren't sure, grab a copy of Wizard's First Rule from your library and make your own decision.

 

[Desdichado]

One thing to say to the O.P. about these books. They are a light, quick read, so if you aren't sure, grab a copy of Wizard's First Rule from your library and make your own decision.

Eh, I bogged down halfway through it. But you're right; obviously not everyone thought the characters were unlikable.

Still, library is a great option. They were also selling it in paberpack for dirt cheap a year or so ago; that's when I picked it up.

 

[takyris]

Now JD, be reasonable. You disagreed with him about the book, which makes you a frothing-at-the-mouth hater and fanboy of some other author. Someone else agreed with him about the book, which makes him an objective reader.

Duh, man.

There's not a whole lot of objectivity when it comes to reading. Given that I'd point out his characters as up there among the worst ever, prone to plot-advancing idiot behavior which is then handwaved away by them protesting that they're not usually like this, and that several people here mentioned really liking the characters, the only options I see are that a) I'm a snob, in which case this discussion is useless, b) they are low-brow readers who wouldn't know good writing if it bit them, in which case this discussion is useless, or c) opinions are always going to vary on this stuff, in which case this discussion is useful as long as it stays constructive.

While I really disliked "Wizard's First Rule", I'd guess that it might work for a) people who hadn't read a lot of fantasy, and who were getting these ideas for the first time, b) people who really liked reading for ideas, and c) people who liked reading for extended and slightly overwrought emotional description (trying to say that in a non-judgmental way -- that's not bad, that's just... what it is).

People in the (a) category might also enjoy Terry Brooks, David Eddings or David Drake as authors who stay strongly within the fantasy tropes. People in the (b) category might also enjoy China Mieville or Neil Gaiman for their many and varied ideas. People in the (c) category might enjoy romantic fantasy -- Nora Roberts, one of the best, has some series that involve fantasy, and there is an entire romantic fantasy genre out there that might be good for folks in this category.

 

[Crothian]

I'm not going to suggest that your opinion is wrong, as that's obviously impossible. But I must ask whether your opinion of Jordan's novels now might not be excessively weighted by his later works?

No, I can asure you it is not based on his later works. I haven't read them. I only got through about the first 5 books I think before I left the series.