Could be a slightly dangerous question please don't kill me!

[Natael]

Has anyone read the sword of truth series? I've read the series three or four times now, WoT about six, and I'm finding quite a few similarities between the two. Is this just me? Also what's your thoughts on the two series? Comparitively I mean.

[Kaznen]

I've read the SoT series also and liked them. I've even been to two book signings, I don't have any books signed by RJ, and the similarities are not just you. Some people say Goodkind ripped off Jordan, but same could be said concering Jordan ripping off from the Dune series.

 

I don't thinkn anyone ripped off from anyone myself. Goodkind themes are more influenced by Ayn Rand and it's just plot devices that are simalar to Jordan.

[JenniferL]

Goodkind is a hack. If I ever meet him I'm going to punch him in the face. Him and Kevin J. Anderson.

[Kadere]

I really liked them. Especially the first 6. Faith of the Fallen is definately my favorite of the books, I think it's the most focused of his works. Pillars of Creation was good and set a different pace, which was nice since the old plot of "Richard loses Kahlan, Richard loses magic power, Richard finds out Wizard's Rule, Richard is too dumb to understand Wizard's Rule, Richard finally figures out Wizard's Rule, Richard is very proud of himself for figureing out what the reader figured out ages ago that he has to explain the Wizard's Rule for about 100 pages, Richard then kicks a LOT of ass and gets Kahlan back" was getting a little old. Then Naked Empire went right back to that old plot, BUT I thought the villian in that book was awesome. And then Chainfire was REALLY good, and a true return to form. I'm waiting for Phantom, I think it's going to be good.

[Kadere]

OH! I almost forgot. I do think somethings are "borrowed" from RJ and other authors, but honestly I think the whole genre of fantasy is borrowing ideas from everyone else and then giving them a new spin. Just about 90% of fantasy is a rewriting of the King Arthur legend. Tolkien stole from hundreds of Welsh legends, RJ stole from Tolkien and Herbert, Martin stole from Malory and Herbert, Herbert stole from Asmoiv, Goodkind stole from RJ and Any Rand... ect. ect. As long as the author gives the same old story something relietivly new, or different, as long as it's COMPELEING, I'll read and I certainly don't mind.

[Guest Karana Majin]

I really liked the first book. If I had just stopped there, I would have been happy. They went downhill FAST and I don't think I read another one after the 3rd or 4th, they were so terrible.

 

Don't think I am saying this because I am some RJ sycophant, either. I think his stuff took a severe downturn, too. Just that his stuff was so much better to start with, that even his lower stuff was better than Goodkind's best.

[Natael]

True that the series have both gone down hill. For Goodkind his worse book in the series was Pillars of Creation. That book made me angry to a point where I almost quit reading the series. For RJ it was the Fires of Heaven. Not that it wasn't a good book, it was, it just wasn't up to standard with the other books. As far as Goodkind being a hack, I completly disagree. That would be like calling any modern playwright a hack. Could you not say that they ripped of Shakespeare? For that matter you could say he ripped of any Greek playwright. Is not any knowledge or idea a perpetual rip off? Yes, ideas are borrowed from any fantasy/sci-fi writer but to call someone a hack because of it seems unfair to me.

[Guest Winespring Brother]

I'd love to rename this thread the "lets bitch about Terry Goodkind" thread, but such things are not really allowed.

 

Kathana hit the nail on the head though. It would be seriously testing not to punch the guy. Although I shamefully admit to enjoying reading his first few books years ago, my opinion soon took a skydive. How can you take an author seriously when he says things like,

 

"What I have done with my work has irrevocably changed the face of fantasy. In so doing I've raised the standards. I have not only injected thought into a tired empty genre, but, more importantly, I've transcended it showing what more it can be-and is so doing spread my readership to completely new groups who don’t like and wont ready typical fantasy"

 

or a debates and discussions sentiment,

 

"The mice think they are right, but my cat eats them anyways."

 

What a guy!

[Natael]

Indeed complaining about Goodkind seems to be the primary topic now, however just because the author is a a-hole doesn't mean his work isn't good. For example, George Lopez is funny and a good comedian but in actuality he supposedly is a real piece of work. Also egotism is something that comes in large doses for some people, apparently Goodkind is one of them; that still does not change the fact that he is still a good author (albiet one that goes in odd directions in his story lines).

[Griggle]

I HATE Goodkind.

I hate all of his series.

Kahlan drives me up the wall!!!

SoT is THE worst series I have ever attempted to read.

 

 

exhailes

[Guest Majsju]

goodkind is the worst pile of rubbish that has ever been published in the fantasy genre.

[the dude]

i liked the first book. when i was twelve.

 

twelve years after that, well, goodkind is a pimple on the butt of fantasy fiction. a pustule. he needs to be popped and drained. then cauterized.

 

it's imperical, to me. mathematical. he writes trash. there's just so little of originality in what he writes. and some of his ideas and catchphrases.... cut. what kind of stupid catchprase/mantra is that? you can just picture these branching martial arts philosophies: swing. stab. doink.

 

my suspicion is that the rare, vaguely cool things in his books are all lifted from somewhere else. i'm completely unwilling to admit that his writing might have any merit. and let's not forget... let's not forget, that he's got a stupid face.

 

[/i]

[Kadere]

lol. I take it a lot of people object to the Objectivist philosophy.

 

I thought the books were pretty cool and really exciting. They were like a shot of adrinellen. Sure the middle of most of the books was boring as hell, but you are gaurenteed a cool climax with each book. That's why I kept reading.

 

I'll totally admit that in reality Goodkind is a complete psychopate, but if we don't pay attention to the guy who's writing the series, I think we have ourselves a really fun read.

[Guest Winespring Brother]

I don't think that Objectivism has anything to do with the dislike of Goodkind and his work, or at least, not for me. Although it is more of a guide to life than a high philosophy, objectivism has some laudable sentiments in my opinion (and no, I am not a Randroid :) I looked into Ayn Rand after you swatted me down on the subject before Kadere, and I think that were she still alive, Ayn Rand would have some harsh words to say about Mr Goodkind's claim to be writing works similar to her own. There is no philosophical guide in the works of Goodkind; its simply a preaching rant on his hatred of communism, and his superiority complex that everything to do with himself and his nation (no offence America) is correct and inherently good. For me, his intent ruins what could be an enjoyable story (providing of course his writing style was fundementally revised and the mid 300 pages cut out :P

[Kadere]

The Wizard's Rules are Goodkind's attempt to "teach" people how to live a better life and be better people. Honestly, I don't really think he has any right to tell anyone that they're less then him because they don't believe in what he does (which is what I take it he does in interviews and things), but I find the message rather intreging and that it does add a certain depth to his work. But even if you don't like his teachings you still have Richard running around hacking people to pieces, and a pretty fun series.

[JenniferL]

I quit reading long before Goodkind began dragging in his personal political demons. The first book was alright, but I had the same "Ugh, I can't believe I'm reading this junk" feeling I had when I read the Da Vinci Code. Despite the poor writing, I was still interested enough in the plot (not the characters) to finish. Someone had made me a gift of the first four books, so I kept going despite my misgivings. Also, I had nothing else to read that week and that was back when I had time to read a novel a day.

 

Sooo...I kept reading. The second book was bad. The third worse and the fourth I nearly gave up on half way through. I hate Terry's prose. Hate. Hate. Hate. There's a scene somewhere where Kahlan uses the word "specialize" about seven times in a paragraph. It made me want to set myself on fire.

 

I also hated that he would introduce amazing plot elements at the beginning of a book, and then never reference them again. Ever. At least with Jordan, you KNOW its coming back some day. Goodkind NEVER referenced the Stone of Tears, or whatever that Moirainish looking woman was waving around in the second book, after its very brief mention. But when it was onstage, it was given the same weight that was given to the whole "I've got a secret!" balderdash that comprised the first book.

 

The plots of the books I read went like this:

 

"Oh no! Something bad has happened. Lets keep secrets while we solve the problem"

 

"Oh no! So and so is keeping secrets. Now I'm pissed off. And so and so is pissy because I'm pissy."

 

"Hooray! We solved the problem! And stopped keeping ridiculous secrets too!"

 

"Oh no... Whatever we just did, just made a BIGGER problem. We shall solve this in the next book. Secretly."

 

And yeah, some things did seem blatantly ripped off from Jordan. Not "borrowing from the same sources". Ripped. Off.

 

Yeah, face punching is the least Terry can expect from me.

[the dude]

goodkind seems to reference all sorts of authors, from my memories of it.

 

let's face it, reading goodkind is the literary equivalent of watching action films starring DMX and Steven Seagal. a sort of guilty pleasure for some, something to be avoided like herpes for others.

[Natael]

I believe we have already established that Goodkind is a duche bag, must we continue talking about how bad this guy's personality is. Some people are so worried about how the writer acts that they miss any merit in any of their work. Take, for example, Corey from Slipknot and Stone Sour, he's a complete a-hole. However, his music is quite good yet some people focus on something he said in some interview and now refuse to listen to anything of merit that he does. Give Goodkind a break, he started off writing children's books for christ sake. He's a duche bag, we get it. But sayings he has nothing original is unfair. Nothing, technically speaking, is original. How can you prove that no one else has thought or done anything you think say or do already? In all likely hood it's been done already.

[the dude]

well, natael, i've never read an interview with goodkind. i make no claims on his personality, since i really have nothing to base it on. i just think his books are crap. real crap.

 

your point about originality is a good one. there is little that is original anymore. what is original about a work now is the spin you put on it. and i don't care for goodkind's spin. why not? because i feel that is is quantifiably bad.

 

and sorry, you lost me with the slipknot reference. there's another example where i don't know (and more importantly don't care. if there is an opposite to caring, that is what i feel) anything about who these guys are as people. what i do know, is that they look real, REAL stupid in those masks, and i don't care what sort of message they're allegedly putting forth by wearing said stupid masks.

 

and, since they're musicians, more important is the fact that their music is garbage. my butt makes better music after taco night. this is not a rip on you personally, man, so please don't take it as such. it is, however, a complete rip on a band that offends me by its very existence. gimmicky bandwagon-hopping "we wish we were korn or marilyn manson" self-indulgent kids is what they are.

[Jeppit Groccin]

I'm in the process of reading the SoT series now. They were recommended by a friend and I picked up the first few with a gift card I had.

 

I read through them, and all I can do is look at WoT and pick out where Goodkind took his ideas from.

 

Sisters of Light = Aes Sedai with a much more lame aging explanation.

 

Blood of the Fold = Children of the Light with different colors. Same methods of finding "banelings" as Whitecloaks use to nab "darkfriends"

 

Richard = Rand. Simple country boy who just happens to be born somewhere else with an adoptive father, dead mother, and is mentioned in prophecies about saving the world and destroying it. And they both have innate magical powers that they try to deny having for a long time.

 

Boundary = Dragonwall. There's the belief that there's an evil group of people on the other side of the mountains that are going to come and eat your children if you aren't careful, all while the countries in the middle bicker with one another and Richard's home is all peaceful and happy and isolated. Two Rivers much?

 

Other than that, it just always seems to me that Goodkind just explains things as he needs them, he doesnt use anything to really set up for major plot twists that really make you think back and try to figure out why something happened the way it did. It just seems very simple and straightforward to me.

[Kadere]

The "plot twists" that make you think back don't come until the 9th book, because that's the beginning of the end of the series. Then you have to think back to everything that happened in the first book, and second book involving Richard's father.

[Natael]

Worry not everyone is entitled to their own opinion, the dude. I take no offense to you not liking Slipknot, in fact I agree with much that you have said about them. And as Jeppit Groccin has stated Goodkind doesn't spend mush time explaining things. Personally that is one of the things I don't like about his series. There are, however, those that don't like Jordan because he "spends too much time explaining things". My friend, who happened to convince me to read the SoT series, is one. In fact most of the people who like the SoT series abore the WoT series for much the same reason. It appears that that is some thing that SoT and WoT fans have in common, the aborance of the others' series. As for plot twists I believe Chainfire, the tenth SoT book, is in its entirety a plot twist. More specifically one that makes you think about everything including things that are to come. Oh and just as an aside, the 11 book, Phantom, comes out in July.

[Kadere]

Hell yeah it does!!!

[Natael]

Glad to see someone else is excited about it too. :D

[the dude]

okay, this thread got me curious. so i went looking for interviews. i quote: "In Canada, for example, you can be arrested for saying anything against the government."

 

so in addition to being a hack, he's also stupid, gullible and ignorant. interesting. i read that, and here is what i said.

 

##$%$%^&*& ^%$% %^&*%##$ that $^&^$%$^ in the %$$%^&%%^^$$^& with a @##$%$^*#$ and $#$%^&*%$ he @$$&^$$%^&* until he @##$%^&*$#$^ and @$%^@#$%^^ dies.