Mad Hatter said:
Takyris, I think the problem is that you categorized some of the Goodkind fans here as rabid fanboys, which is hardly the case.
Please provide a quote from this thread in which I said this. I just searched my posts, and found nothing of the sort. The closest I found was when I suggested that people who enjoyed Goodkind were lowbrow readers incapable of critical thought... which is bad, except that it was 1 of 3 possibilities, with the first being that I was a snob and the third (and, I had hoped, obviously, the actual point to assume) being that tastes may vary and that it was useful to compare opinions.
The paragraph in question was:
"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."
If that's the closest you've got to me calling people faving Goodkind fanboys, then please chalk it up to a combination of me not putting smileys in to show that a) and b) were false options. I don't consider myself a snob, and I don't consider everyone who likes Goodkind to be a lowbrow reader incapable of differentiating good writing from bad. (I do consider some people to be that way, but that's true for non-Goodkind-lovers as well. Some people just
are lousy readers, incapable of recognizing good writing. But I don't know anybody here well enough to make that judgment here... nor would it be polite to do so.)
If I've missed a line of mine in which I did call the Goodkind people raving/rabid fanboys, please point it out to me. Otherwise, your argument is based off a false premise.
I also think that it's unfair to even submit your broad categories. It's perfectly within your rights but that doesn't mean that it was appropriate to this particular discussion.
Really? You don't think it was appropriate to the discussion?
Guy Who Started the Thread said:
This guy gets really mixed reviews on Amazon.com. Can you tell me if he is in the same league as Jordan, Hobb or Williams? I doubt there is an author as good as Martin in fantasy genre anyway.
He's asking if Goodkind is any good, and specifically asking with regard to comparisons to other authors. How is making a list of differentiating characteristics (differentiating meaning "more specific than general awesomeness or total coolness, which is sort of hard to pin down as in one book and not in another") and using those characteristics to extrapolate other books that readers of Goodkind might like inappropriate? It's not
exactly the answer to his question -- he's asking "If I like XXX, will I like YYY?" and I'm answering with "While I didn't like YYY myself, I believe that people who like YYY might also like ZZZ," which could be useful if he liked ZZZ.
To put the ball in somebody else's court: many Goodkind fans (not rabid fanboys, although apparently I use that term all the time, except that it doesn't appear in my non-edited posts) have suggested that the categories of differentiated enjoyment I created are not accurate. This is fair, as I didn't enjoy the books myself. To help, then, could someone please create a list of things they enjoyed about the book that differentiate the book from other books? If you liked Goodkind but not Martin, what was the difference? If you liked Goodkind but not Jordan, what was the difference?
For reference, attempting to disambiguate, my three points were:
1) Use of wide-ranging ideas and abstract concepts -- we have the sword of truth. We have the boxes. We have love as a means of execution. Lots of abstract concepts applied to the plot (Similar to Tolkien or C.S. Lewis, where magic is meant to be an awe-inspiring force with few universal rules, mysterious and capable of being changed in order to create a dramatic moment (Aslan's death, for example). Different from Jordan's Wheel of Time and Modessit's Recluse series, where magic has much firmer rules, allowing you to understand the system more easily and more completely but making it harder to catch you by surprise with a sense of wonder. Not impossible, but harder.)
2) Entry-level ease for fantasy, such that someone without a ton of familiarity with the genre can pick it up easily. (Similar to Eddings, Brooks, and possibly Hobb's Farseer books. Different from Farland, Modessit, and Martin, although that's supposition on my part -- I
think that the worldbuilding of those three, and the implied fantasy background that the reader has to sort of already know, would make those three authors tough for a new fantasy reader. I'm sure there are better examples of this, though.)
3) Emotional Upheaval, with characters feeling great sweeping joy, sudden surges of love, or immense tragic sadness that can cause them to display irrational but emotionally powerful behavior. (Similar to Melanie Rawn, Mercedes Lackey, and possibly Robin Hobb's Farseer books in terms of the teen-angst, which isn't romantic but is indeed overwhelming and sweeping at times. Even... overwrought.
Different from Eddings, Modessit, and Martin, which is not to say that these guys don't have any emotions in their characters, but that both the degree and the frequency of these emotional displays is lower.)
It just so happens that I agree with you about the authors that you mention in your post though. 
