Just finished the last book for The Sword of Truth novels

[hurryupnwait]

let me start off by saying I found the novels mildly entertaining in the beginning.  Even the philosophical rants were in the beginning thought provoking if a bit long winded.  As the Novels wore on it became more and more difficult to power through Goodkind's "look how smart I am" approach, but when I start something be it book, game, project,etc. I like to power through it no matter how old it can sometimes get.  You might say that I might have a small touch of OCD in that aspect.

 

Unlike the WOT novels there is no way I would re-read those books.  Without getting into specifics I consider myself a quietly religious person.  According to Goodkind that makes me a cowardly idiot.  Too stupid and afraid to grasp the plainly obvious fact that this life is all there is.  That my brief existence is insignificant to the universe.  That is almost a direct quote.  If a person wants to be an atheist, agnostic, or nihilist that is fine with me.  I don't agree but I would not call them blind, stupid, or anything else.  I choose to believe in something more than this life.  Goodkind says I have abdicated reason and reality with that belief.  Faith is for the deficient.

 

One thing I have always loved about the WOT is that RJ has told a story that I find fascinating in its depth and vibrancy.  He has written an enormous story that will encompass a dozen very large novels.  He has accomplished this without coming across as a pompous windbag that is overproud of his command of semantics.  RJ has told a story without insulting me, or trying to talk over my head in a transparent attempt to impress the reader.

 

I was just wondering what everyone else thinks.  What about RJ's art impresses you.  What about Goodkind does not?  What does not impress in general?

[Davian93]

Sword of Truth blows completely and Terry Goodkind basically ripped off RJ and Ayn Rand and spewed out a book series from the two...at least IMHO.

[BrainFireBob]

Goodkind fell into the same trap Rand did- he assumed liking his books equated to agreeing with their ideas (which says volumes about his judgementalism as a reader). His writing suffered as a consequence- as did hers.

[OzzieAlThor]

Goodkind fell into the same trap Rand did- he assumed liking his books equated to agreeing with their ideas (which says volumes about his judgementalism as a reader). His writing suffered as a consequence- as did hers.

 

I would suggest both you and the orginal poster are doing the same thing you're suggesting the authors have done.

 

Like a book series doesn't mean agreeing with it philosophically. If that was true:

 

*I would think all women sniff loudly when annoyed.

*All women were smarter then men (not all of you are very smart, just like men)

*All men were bumbling baffons who should feel lucky that women exist to tell them what to do (See above)

 

The long and short of it is I can't stand the way women are finally protrayed in a very powerful postition in a series and the mass majority of them are plain old jerks.

 

I still enjoy the series enough to refer to it to other people. No series and no author is perfect.

[Thunderbomb]

Goodkind put me to sleep, RJ put me in a fantasy world that kept me entertained...nuff said.

[Kura]

First and foremost, hurry, may whatever religious favor your believe in be bestowed on you. If all religious people were like you, I'd have a few less headaches... But I won't get into this one, I've fallen into one too many religious flame wars with words like these.  ;)

 

More to the point, I've never even picked up Goodkind, but I fear I've developed a bias from simply frequenting DM, so I can't say anything about what I don't like about his books.

 

What I can talk about, is RJ's world. I won't go into how real the characters are, the complexity of his plots, etc. etc. etc. There is one thing that really sticks out to me, the world he created. He created an entire force of creation, though admittedly vague about who/what it is, but really what Overgod(Chief God for you non-DnD players out there), takes a hand in human affairs? He's created a sort of 'sin' system, for lack of a better word, a unified front for evil, and a divided one for good. He's created cities, towns, continents, and all these other land features, and given them an identity. Created superstitions, and in my opinion created accurate accounts of how stories can become legends and fables. So, very much detail work, I mean, how many named characters are there? How many historical references that he actually has to have a fleshed out story on if ever questioned? He's created a timeline that stretches over 3000 years, and has us wondering about the before and after on either end. Honestly, the world the Wheel of Time is set in is one of the more amazing things I've seen, and I've tried to incorporate the spirit, if not the details, into my own world-building.

 

I mean, its really an inspiration for my DMing and story writing. I've created countless maps, dungeons, cities, towns, and NPCs for my players to enjoy, and often destroy. I've even dabbled into making full fledged classes, trying hard to balance them out, and even took a shot at creating full systems of magic and physical ability. (It's hard, my god is it hard.) In my writing, I've got an idea in the works that will cover huge stretches of time and distance, with villains of different powers and fronts, but I won't get into those details. Thats more of a Genereal Discussion thread. ;)

 

So yeah, in short I really love RJ's world, its an inspiration to those of us interested in creating our own.

[anamul]

Goodkind fell into the same trap Rand did- he assumed liking his books equated to agreeing with their ideas (which says volumes about his judgementalism as a reader). His writing suffered as a consequence- as did hers.

 

Don't mean to be rude, but did you really read Ayn Rand? Or you are judging her writing by TG? TG has stolen or borrowed some philosophy from her and thats all.

 

I have read both SOT and Wot, and ofcourse Ayn Rand.

 

Or you just heard that Ayn Rand writes on Capitalism? Rumors, again. If you hate capitalism you will hate Ayn Rand, thats obvious to me.

 

Now, I am not going to launch into the old communism and capitalism debates, but I will be carefull to judge any writing before I read it and understand it completely.

 

Above all philosophy, what Ayn Rand potrayed most is her hatred for lazy people.She considered a man without any kind of objective as a infection in the society. Yeah, she showed weekness to man, but considering that she didn't try to hide it...I applaude her.What-ever she was she was no FREAK.

 

 

 

 

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

Above all philosophy, what Ayn Rand portrayed most is her hatred for lazy people.

 

Unfortunately, she also exhibited a total disrespect for all religions, in deed for religion in general.  She also showed little regard for such values as tradition and morality.  Her own private life not only showed her disregard for societal norms but also a lack of respect for the individuals she dealt with. She used people when convenient and disregarded the harm her actions had on those around her.  Her "Objectivist" philosophy is at a par with the "Dianetics"(sp?) author who thought-up Scientology (whose fantasy/ Sci-fi series I found mildly entertaining).

 

Ayn Rand, however, was an imaginative and gifted writer, whose books work as literature whatever their shortcomings philosophically.  Goodkind on the other hand is a rather pedantic writer whose lack of imagination and writing ability make his claim that he is more then a fantasy writer ridiculous (and I would add that he is a bad fantasy writer).  In addition, Goodkind, either because of a lack of intellect or a lack of writing skills has butchered Ayn Rand's philosophical points (whatever merit they may or may not have)in his writings. 

 

To OzzieAthor:

 

The problem of course is that Goodkind has stated that his books are just the vehicles for his ideas.  When reading an author like JR you can disagree with a particular characterization he has made and still enjoy the series as entertaining and imaginative.  However, when an author specifically claims that his stories are mere vehicles for his philosophical ideas (which is what Goodkind has stated) then if you disagree with his ideas and he propounds them in an unimaginative and in-artful way then you (the reader) would be hard pressed to find the writing in anyway worthwhile.

 

As I have stated I have serious objections philosophically with Ayn Rand but found her books enjoyable (and important) as literature.

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

"Dianetics"(sp?) author who thought-up Scientology (whose fantasy/ Sci-fi series I found mildly entertaining).

L. Ron Hubbard?

 

That my brief existence is insignificant to the universe.

 

Is it just me, or does Goodkind's philosophy make it even more astounding that he thinks that he is so important to the world and literature? Because it certainly seems that his opinions of himself are contradictory to his own beliefs of man's insignificance. I can only imagine that his own beliefs have made him a very, very bitter person.

 

[hurryupnwait]

I would suggest both you and the orginal poster are doing the same thing you're suggesting the authors have done.

 

Like a book series doesn't mean agreeing with it philosophically.

 

In most instances I would agree with this statement.  The problem is Goodkind himself eliminates this option.  He clearly states time and again that anyone who disagrees with him has abdicated reason, and reality.  It is difficult to disagree with an authors views on life, and still like his work when he calls you an ignorant savage that cannot think for him/herselves for disagreein with him.

 

He is not willing to give you the option of agreeing to disagree.  His stance is "agree with me or you are less than human,"  anyone who takes that approach to anything is in opinion at best an agitator, at worst look no further than the concentration camps in Nazi Germany.

[BrainFireBob]

Goodkind fell into the same trap Rand did- he assumed liking his books equated to agreeing with their ideas (which says volumes about his judgementalism as a reader). His writing suffered as a consequence- as did hers.

 

Don't mean to be rude, but did you really read Ayn Rand? Or you are judging her writing by TG? TG has stolen or borrowed some philosophy from her and thats all.

 

I have read both SOT and Wot, and ofcourse Ayn Rand.

 

Or you just heard that Ayn Rand writes on Capitalism? Rumors, again. If you hate capitalism you will hate Ayn Rand, thats obvious to me.

 

Now, I am not going to launch into the old communism and capitalism debates, but I will be carefull to judge any writing before I read it and understand it completely.

 

Above all philosophy, what Ayn Rand potrayed most is her hatred for lazy people.She considered a man without any kind of objective as a infection in the society. Yeah, she showed weekness to man, but considering that she didn't try to hide it...I applaude her.What-ever she was she was no FREAK.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I have.

 

And Rand's later books suffer from the same thing Goodkind's later books do- this is also to the poster who accused me of disagreeing with Goodkind's ideas leading to a dislike of his writing- she stops writing a good story and instead writes to create opportunities for diatribes. Those of us who aren't stupid have already grasped the point by then, and since those are the people theoretically being addressed, it is a sign of poor writing to spend so much time on these diatribes.

 

EDIT- Btw, two additions.

 

1) The comment about "freak" betrays an emotional bias somewhere.

 

2) The arguments regarding capitalism are not only completely invalid, they are ignorant. As it happens, I support capitalism, and you had no reason to suspect differently.

[hurryupnwait]

my point exactly Bob

[anamul]

CUBAREY , I agree with you. But what disturbed me most was her total lack of faith in "Creator existance".

 

For others, any writer or artist can suffer downfall in their creativity, but that doesn't demeans their main creation which brought them recognition.

 

Comparing her with goodkind doesn't feel right. As a writer she was really talented.

 

Too much of anything is bad, so Rands laters work suffered the same effect.

 

I said she was no freak,cause, I believe, she let everything out. She wrote what-ever she thought...Few people can or will do it.

 

I don't know if there is any other meaning in freak. I meant it that way.

 

Too much ==== Fanatic....As simple as that.