OMG is this story ripping of the WoT or what?

[DuDZiK]

But I could never stand the Richard-Kahlan relationship. That I found positively disgusting. >:(

 

If I want to read 'romance' I'll pick up Danielle Steel (I think that's her) or watch a cheap soap.

 

I find this statement rather interesting; how exactly do you find it disgusting? Is it too... graphic? Do you just find it out of place, or is this the kind of thing that you would call disgusting in any book or even real life? I mean, there's relationships akin to Richard-Kahlan in a sense in the Wheel of Time as well (Rand and his three SOs, Perrin and Faile, Nynaeve and Lan, Egwene and Gawyn even if its in her dreams only), do you find that disgusting or is it more toned down?

 

[DuDZiK]

I read the first 3 or 4 books of The Sword of Truth, and while i liked them i quickly realized that these books were The Wheel of Time, just not nearly as good. I stopped reading them soon after.

I think that if i would have read TSoT prior to WOT i would have liked them fine but after then were no comparison.

 

This is also pretty interesting, because I read the SOT series after WOT, and I liked it as much if not more. Other than a few superficial things - things unimportant to the actual story itself - I didn't find anything to be comparable to WOT other than the typical fantasy archetypes that I find in every fantasy book/story or myth I encounter.

 

I mean, when you read a fantasy story is it just the magical things and people that make it for you? Personally I'll always take the story and character development over the magic. The reason for that is, as I already stated, because the idea of magic has existed for thousands of years, and you're going to encounter similarities or exact borrowings of concepts.

[Luckers]

I definately go for the story and characters, but thats part of the problem here. The story, such that it is, rambles with no particular directive influence. After the sixth book he seems to give up on it completely, using the books as a glorified coffee store where his characters sit around engaging in page long discussion that usually involve Richard saying something, whilst every other older and wiser character immediately calls him a fool, then him going on and all those other characters slowly come to realise they were wrong and abase themselves in abject horror at ever having doubted him.

 

The early books had some hack and slash going on, and Goodkind, intentionally or not, keyed in with appeal to young males--the whole Richard, this giant muscly guy, managing to save an assist this beautiful woman who then wants nothing except to be his friend reeks of the average fantasy life of the socially inept fourteen year old boy. Throw in a magic sword and an enemy thats ultimately his father and its all made. The evolution fits... a man that sees the world like that could only see adulthood as a time when he is finally recognized for his brilliant knowledge of himself.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Dreadlord]

The only thing in SoT that doesnt have an equivalent/original idea in WoT is Gratch. Rand has had no animal/beast companion, which Richard had. I think Goodkind was feeling adventurous when he came up with Gratch. Everything else has similarities to something in WoT

[Majsju]

Rand has had no animal/beast companion

 

What about Perrin ;D

[Guest Dreadlord]

I cant believe you even said that Maj! Perrin is a bloke!

And the fact that he is a Wolfbrother doesnt bring him any closer to being an animal companion of Rands.

[Shendare]

True, Rand's only real constant companion is LTT.

[Guest Dreadlord]

I could understand if you said Hopper was Perrins animal/beast companion, but not Perrin being Rands

[Graendals favourite]

I have not read SoT since it's pretty much obvious there's no point. I have read some of the interviews/summaries etc, and I have to say in my opinion the whole existence of the series is annoying. First Goodkind borrows half of everything from RJ, and then he makes a mockery of WoT by turning everything on its head. Where RJ puts his characters into difficult situations where they must choose between right and wrong etc, Goodkind has everything resolve itself by the main character's flawlessness. Where RJ puts out discussion without any clear answers, Goodkind forcefeeds his own philosophy as a law of the universe. It just seems like SoT is WoT turned to the Shadow, where there was substance there is naive and superficial drivel. Obviously I'm not planning to read it  ;).

[Jelly]

"People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true."  8)

[Harmless Bandit]

But I could never stand the Richard-Kahlan relationship. That I found positively disgusting. >:(

 

If I want to read 'romance' I'll pick up Danielle Steel (I think that's her) or watch a cheap soap.

 

I find this statement rather interesting; how exactly do you find it disgusting? Is it too... graphic? Do you just find it out of place, or is this the kind of thing that you would call disgusting in any book or even real life? I mean, there's relationships akin to Richard-Kahlan in a sense in the Wheel of Time as well (Rand and his three SOs, Perrin and Faile, Nynaeve and Lan, Egwene and Gawyn even if its in her dreams only), do you find that disgusting or is it more toned down?

 

 

 

No, no, it's not that I find it graphic ;D

 

You can't call that graphic if you have read GRRM's ASoIaF. Luckers came close to expressing what I mean.

The relationship itself doesn't bother me, rather it's the way they go about it. Every other page Richard is thinking about Kahlan, how he loves her, how he is nothing without her etc etc, and the same goes for her. They fill each other's minds to nearly the exclusion of everything else.

 

I mean we're bombarded with the fact that they are in love every other paragraph.

I for one could have done without those hourly reminders of their affair. Too much of it, is what I am trying to say.

 

Remind you of someone in WoT?

[Guest Dreadlord]

Perrin. That is his downfall.

 

I know EXACTLY what you mean. Its ok that Richard is in love but he should be able to go for 5 minutes without rambling on in his head about Kahlan and the same goes the other way round.

[DuDZiK]

No, no, it's not that I find it graphic ;D

 

You can't call that graphic if you have read GRRM's ASoIaF. Luckers came close to expressing what I mean.

The relationship itself doesn't bother me, rather it's the way they go about it. Every other page Richard is thinking about Kahlan, how he loves her, how he is nothing without her etc etc, and the same goes for her. They fill each other's minds to nearly the exclusion of everything else.

 

I mean we're bombarded with the fact that they are in love every other paragraph.

I for one could have done without those hourly reminders of their affair. Too much of it, is what I am trying to say.

 

Remind you of someone in WoT?

 

Ever been in love?

 

I have, or I should say I am, and my thoughts are almost exactly as described between Richard and Kahlan.

 

Now, part of the reason why I like the series and do not find the 'lovey-dovey' scenes between Richard and Kahlan may be because of the way I think of love and the way I have and still am experiencing it, while for you it is perhaps different and thus you may not relate to/appreciate that kind of thing in a story.

 

One of the main reasons why I love the Sword of Truth series is because it reflects my own values and likes/dislikes so much. If people don't like it because they are the opposite, I can understand that but I don't think that gives them an excuse to say that Terry is a bad writer.

[DuDZiK]

On the topic of fantasy authors borrowing ideas from other sources, here's an interesting tid-bit about the Green Man:

 

http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/CeltPan.html

 

The Green Man One of the most ancient figures in European tradition, pre-dating perhaps even the Aryan invasions. He seems to be a God of vegetative strength, a masculine figure of fertility and life-energy. He is usually imaged as a large or giant male, clad entirely, or perhaps actually composed entirely, in green leaves. He appears on the fringes of popular awareness in a bewildering number of guises: his archetype may be recognized in as widely divergent sources as the central figure in the 14th century poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight on the one hand, and on the other as the basis behind the modern commercial image of the Jolly Green Giant.

[Harmless Bandit]

No, no, it's not that I find it graphic ;D

 

You can't call that graphic if you have read GRRM's ASoIaF. Luckers came close to expressing what I mean.

The relationship itself doesn't bother me, rather it's the way they go about it. Every other page Richard is thinking about Kahlan, how he loves her, how he is nothing without her etc etc, and the same goes for her. They fill each other's minds to nearly the exclusion of everything else.

 

I mean we're bombarded with the fact that they are in love every other paragraph.

I for one could have done without those hourly reminders of their affair. Too much of it, is what I am trying to say.

 

Remind you of someone in WoT?

 

Ever been in love?

 

I have, or I should say I am, and my thoughts are almost exactly as described between Richard and Kahlan.

 

Now, part of the reason why I like the series and do not find the 'lovey-dovey' scenes between Richard and Kahlan may be because of the way I think of love and the way I have and still am experiencing it, while for you it is perhaps different and thus you may not relate to/appreciate that kind of thing in a story.

 

That's a valid point you raise. I had a few doses of the love potion back in high school, and I can relate (somewhat) to Kahlan and Richard. And I certainly don't mind a love story in whatever genre I am reading.

 

The thing is, though, while it may appear realistic, it can get annoying after a while (personal opinion). A bit fewer of those reminders, and the rest would have been enough to convince me that they are deeply in love. Too much of anything can ruin it, and that's what happened in this case. I can understand wanting to make a painting colorful, but if you stress a bit too much some of those colors, it could simply ruin it.

 

One of the main reasons why I love the Sword of Truth series is because it reflects my own values and likes/dislikes so much. If people don't like it because they are the opposite, I can understand that but I don't think that gives them an excuse to say that Terry is a bad writer.

 

For the record, the love thing doesn't make him a bad writer in my eyes. I enjoyed quite a bit of his story. That he failed to see that the way he wrote the relationship could become tedious doesn't look good on his credentials, though, in my eyes.

 

And I could point out to you that while you think he is good because you can relate to it so much, it may not be so for others. Reverse the situation, think of a writer you may not like, then think of someone who likes her/him. Ultimately it's a personal thing.

 

But I think what most people complain about is his [percieved] lack of originality (him borrowing, and then not accepting that he borrowed).

And to be honest, I haven't seen many people who point out the relationship as a negative thing. Just a pet peeve of mine.

 

 

[DuDZiK]

That's a valid point you raise. I had a few doses of the love potion back in high school, and I can relate (somewhat) to Kahlan and Richard. And I certainly don't mind a love story in whatever genre I am reading.

 

The thing is, though, while it may appear realistic, it can get annoying after a while (personal opinion). A bit fewer of those reminders, and the rest would have been enough to convince me that they are deeply in love. Too much of anything can ruin it, and that's what happened in this case. I can understand wanting to make a painting colorful, but if you stress a bit too much some of those colors, it could simply ruin it.

 

I think it could if you already didn't like seeing so much of it. I personally had no problems with the frequency of that sort of thing.

 

For the record, the love thing doesn't make him a bad writer in my eyes. I enjoyed quite a bit of his story. That he failed to see that the way he wrote the relationship could become tedious doesn't look good on his credentials, though, in my eyes.

 

Sorry, I was speaking in a general sense at that point and didn't mean for it to appear as if I was speaking directly to you.

 

But I digress; some people see it as tedious, others do not. Who is the author to write to? Personally, I think he should first and foremost write to himself. I'm sure that when he wrote it it didn't seem tedious to him. Maybe his editors said something and he overrode them, and maybe they didn't; either way it all comes down to something known as 'author's license'  ;D

 

And I could point out to you that while you think he is good because you can relate to it so much, it may not be so for others. Reverse the situation, think of a writer you may not like, then think of someone who likes her/him. Ultimately it's a personal thing.

 

Of course, I would not want to intentionally say that he's a good writer because I like him. I was trying to say that the quality of an author's writing ability or skill, rather than the end product itself being enjoyable or not, is something that cannot be judged by a person's bias.

 

But I think what most people complain about is his [percieved] lack of originality (him borrowing, and then not accepting that he borrowed).

And to be honest, I haven't seen many people who point out the relationship as a negative thing. Just a pet peeve of mine.

 

Bit of a different matter isn't it? ;)

 

Even still, I have a bit of a pet peeve with people who use 'he's not original and doesn't accept his borrowing from others' as justification to completely slag him personally and his abilities as a writer.

 

I should clarify, since I got caught with you for not doing so, that I am not confining this last statement with people on this forum alone. I have browsed many other forums and talked with other people, and there has been a small group of people whom I have encounter who exhibit what I am talking about.

[Jonn]

reeks of the average fantasy life of the socially inept fourteen year old boy. Throw in a magic sword and an enemy thats ultimately his father and its all made. The evolution fits... a man that sees the world like that could only see adulthood as a time when he is finally recognized for his brilliant knowledge of himself.

 

 

This is probably one of my favorite things I've ever seen anyone post. Brilliant stuff man.

 

Please, tell me you didn't rip this off from someone else... :D  ;)

[Baldar]

How in hell can a dick like goodkind who can not come up with his own ideas get a tv deal and the master (RJ) can not. Goodkind needs all his books burned and forgotten

 

Look at the bright side, A Song of Fire and Ice is going to be produced for TV. That's many, many steps above Gooberkin, IMO.

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

One of the main reasons why I love the Sword of Truth series is because it reflects my own values and likes/dislikes so much.

 

One of the main reasons why I didn't finish the Sword of Truth series is because it does not reflect my own values and likes/dislikes.

 

Honestly, I am fine with reading a book by a person whose values show through into the book, even if they are contrary to my own. What I have a problem with--why I will not have a Goodkind book in my personal library or buy one with my own money--is when a "novelist" (or anyone who produces something) equates us liking (or disliking) their writing as meaning that we agree (or disagree) with their values. The parenthetic part is doubly bad, because that is almost like saying "Well, you just don't like my writing because I believe different from you. Not because of any fault of my own."

 

Heck, I would probably refuse to buy something made by someone with similar values, even, if they operated by that line of logic.

 

Even still, I have a bit of a pet peeve with people who use 'he's not original and doesn't accept his borrowing from others' as justification to completely slag him personally and his abilities as a writer.

 

Exclude "completely" from that:

 

"Even still, I have a bit of a pet peeve with people who use 'he's not original and doesn't accept his borrowing from others' as justification to completely slag him personally and his abilities as a writer."

 

If it were true that he borrowed (consciously) and didn't accept that, would it not be sufficient justification?

 

[DuDZiK]

One of the main reasons why I love the Sword of Truth series is because it reflects my own values and likes/dislikes so much.

 

One of the main reasons why I didn't finish the Sword of Truth series is because it does not reflect my own values and likes/dislikes.

 

I touched on that in the same post, I believe.

 

Honestly, I am fine with reading a book by a person whose values show through into the book, even if they are contrary to my own. What I have a problem with--why I will not have a Goodkind book in my personal library or buy one with my own money--is when a "novelist" (or anyone who produces something) equates us liking (or disliking) their writing as meaning that we agree (or disagree) with their values. The parenthetic part is doubly bad, because that is almost like saying "Well, you just don't like my writing because I believe different from you. Not because of any fault of my own."

 

I'm no expert on what Terry has said outside his books, like in interviews and whatnot, so I will not be aware if he said any such thing. I have, however, had dealings with people who know Terry personally and who are experts on what Terry has said outside his books and I will quote for you a statement from the Terry Goodkind official forum owner, and personal friend of Terry:

 

Now if you read the new Q and A and philosophy sections, you will see that Terry is not trying to promote his philosophy with his books. It is there because it is part of his life, not because he wants everyone to be an objectivist.

 

EDIT: I just found this on his forum, its Terry's outline of his philosophy in relation to his story:

 

I am an Objectivist. Let me say right here, though, that my books are not intended to explain, advance, or promote Objectivism. My intent with my novels is simply to tell a good story. My Objectivist beliefs, however, guide what I think is a good story and how I tell it, just as every writer, whether they realize it or not, is guided by their philosophy. Because our outlook on life — our philosophy — governs our every action, it is essential to have a complete and integrated philosophy in order to live the fullest life possible.

 

This seems quite contrary to what you are saying the Sword of Truth is doing.

 

Furthermore, having been on that forum for over two years, I have also come into contact with people of all sorts of beliefs who love the books as much if not more than I do: atheists, agnostics, catholics, mormons, conservatives, liberals, anarchists, socialists, communists, objectivists, reasonists etc. I have heard someone from just about every belief system say that their beliefs in one way or another were reflected in the series.

 

While I agree that there is a particular set of values that is more overt than others (and communist sympathizers saying that it is reflected in the series is something I cannot wrap my head around), and that the values of the author are perhaps more obviously portrayed in the SoT series than in others, that still should not, IMO, detract from the story. All writings, even documents that are supposed to be completely devoid of bias and personal beliefs, will contain even the slightest bit of the person's beliefs/values, and in fantasy stories its more obvious. The reason is that all fantasy novels are about battles between good and evil, and the author has to define what good and evil is.

 

Heck, I would probably refuse to buy something made by someone with similar values, even, if they operated by that line of logic.

 

Even still, I have a bit of a pet peeve with people who use 'he's not original and doesn't accept his borrowing from others' as justification to completely slag him personally and his abilities as a writer.

 

Exclude "completely" from that:

 

"Even still, I have a bit of a pet peeve with people who use 'he's not original and doesn't accept his borrowing from others' as justification to completely slag him personally and his abilities as a writer."

 

If it were true that he borrowed (consciously) and didn't accept that, would it not be sufficient justification?

 

In my opinion? No, but as I've said before, I've studied much mythology and I've seen many stories from the last few centuries that have consciously borrowed and accepted it to varying degrees, and I don't hold it against any of them.

[Luckers]

Ever been in love?

 

I have, or I should say I am, and my thoughts are almost exactly as described between Richard and Kahlan.

 

Now, part of the reason why I like the series and do not find the 'lovey-dovey' scenes between Richard and Kahlan may be because of the way I think of love and the way I have and still am experiencing it, while for you it is perhaps different and thus you may not relate to/appreciate that kind of thing in a story.

 

One of the main reasons why I love the Sword of Truth series is because it reflects my own values and likes/dislikes so much. If people don't like it because they are the opposite, I can understand that but I don't think that gives them an excuse to say that Terry is a bad writer.

 

See, to me it reminds me more of what i used to wish love was like when i was young and had an unrequited crush. Especially in the way he portrays Kahlan's perceptions of Richard--im reminded of the way when she sees him standing accross a Ja'La field in Confessor, and waxes poetic for an entire paragraph about how he was the most dangerous man in the world. This at a time when she has no memories of him.

 

Their whole relationship is ultimately under-devoloped. He got them to a certain stage and seemed to have no idea who to take it further and so contrieved to find ways to seperate them. The relationship ended up being a series of them fighting to find each other, but never developed beyond that.

 

On the topic of fantasy authors borrowing ideas from other sources, here's an interesting tid-bit about the Green Man:

 

http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/CeltPan.html

 

The Green Man One of the most ancient figures in European tradition, pre-dating perhaps even the Aryan invasions. He seems to be a God of vegetative strength, a masculine figure of fertility and life-energy. He is usually imaged as a large or giant male, clad entirely, or perhaps actually composed entirely, in green leaves. He appears on the fringes of popular awareness in a bewildering number of guises: his archetype may be recognized in as widely divergent sources as the central figure in the 14th century poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight on the one hand, and on the other as the basis behind the modern commercial image of the Jolly Green Giant.

 

Its not the issue really. All fantasy series draw from mythology, its one of the main methods of worldbuilding, and as such you do see similarities between series'. Indeed, I actually think its a good thing, giving stories more dimension--in my own book i draw heavily upon my religious studies degree even so far as to have characters from Chinese Folk Religion and Zoroasterianism, so understand that i dont have an issue at all with others doing it.

 

The issue here, at least for me, is number and nature of the correlations between The Sword of Truth and the Wheel of Time. Their position and purpose within the plot are just too similar to result from the idea that both men drew from the same mythologies.

 

Even still, I have a bit of a pet peeve with people who use 'he's not original and doesn't accept his borrowing from others' as justification to completely slag him personally and his abilities as a writer.

 

Just for clarity, i think his theft actually made his writing bareable, and when he stopped after the sixth book it just lost all hope.

 

I'm no expert on what Terry has said outside his books, like in interviews and whatnot, so I will not be aware if he said any such thing. I have, however, had dealings with people who know Terry personally and who are experts on what Terry has said outside his books and I will quote for you a statement from the Terry Goodkind official forum owner, and personal friend of Terry:

 

Quote

Now if you read the new Q and A and philosophy sections, you will see that Terry is not trying to promote his philosophy with his books. It is there because it is part of his life, not because he wants everyone to be an objectivist.

 

EDIT: I just found this on his forum, its Terry's outline of his philosophy in relation to his story:

 

 

Quote

I am an Objectivist. Let me say right here, though, that my books are not intended to explain, advance, or promote Objectivism. My intent with my novels is simply to tell a good story. My Objectivist beliefs, however, guide what I think is a good story and how I tell it, just as every writer, whether they realize it or not, is guided by their philosophy. Because our outlook on life — our philosophy — governs our every action, it is essential to have a complete and integrated philosophy in order to live the fullest life possible.

 

This seems quite contrary to what you are saying the Sword of Truth is doing.

 

I just spent the past twenty minutes looking for the interview i was talking about. The one where he accuses a 12 year old of being afraid of the truth for not liking his new books, and were he goes on and on about how he is a 'novelist' not a fantasy writer, and that his books are changing the world.

 

I couldn't find it, but trust me, its hysterical. I'll keep looking.

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

Here's a little something (emphasis mine):

 

Question: Lately I've found myself in many arguments defending your books against 'fans' who say they used to like your books but no longer do to the extent that they used to. Would you mind settling some debates by answering the Question: What, if anything do you have to say to the people that voice the opinion that you're latest four books haven't been as good as the previous four and call them "too preachy"?

 

Answer: Don't be fooled. The assertion made by these detractors is a note wrapped around a brick thrown through the window. These people are not fans. There are hundreds if not thousands of fantasy books that fulfill their professed taste in books. Why would they continue to read books they claim are bad? Because they hate that my novels exists. Values arouse hatred in these people. Their goal is not to enjoy life, but to destroy that which is good -much like a school child who does not wish to study for a test and instead beats up a classmate who does well. These people hate what is good because it is good. Their lives are limited to loathing and indifference. It isn't that they want to read a good book, what they want is to make sure that you do not. Ignore them.

 

Two things of note:

• The first emboldened part tells me that, even if it is misunderstood, he cares little for his public image. And if it isn't misunderstood, it confirms my suspicion.
  
• The second part just seems completely arrogant.
   
  

 

And then there's this:

 

I'm honored to be invited to this live chat. As always, I'm pleased to get a chance to answer many of the questions readers have.

 

Before we begin, I would like to clarify an important point that is often the source of confusion: I am a novelist; I am not, in the essential sense, a fantasy author.

 

It is the defining characteristic, upon which other characteristics depend, that properly distinguishes a thing's identity. This is called the rule of fundamentality.

 

To define me as a fantasy writer is to misunderstand the context of my books by misidentifying their fundamentals.

 

There are many kinds of books: thrillers, manuals, sagas, textbooks, poetry, geometry books, fantasies, memoirs, history, etiquette books, novels, etc. Books properly belong in specific categories because of their essential characteristics. An essential characteristic of a cookbook would be that it primarily contains recipes.

 

The essential attributes of a novel are: Theme, Plot, Characterization. These are not the essential attributes of a fantasy book. The essential attribute that dominates a fantasy is its mystical or magical aspects. A novel, dominated, driven and defined by mystical elements, can certainly be a fantasy. But a saga (a long detailed report), dominated by mystical elements, can be a fantasy as well. World building books are fantasies when driven by magic. Sagas (generally a subcategory of Naturalism) and world building books (which also usually fall under the broad category of Naturalism) can be fantasies, but they are not novels; they lack the requisite elements of Theme, Plot, and Characterization. (Naturalism is a school of art that denies the existence of volition, thereby dismissing the need for plot. Romanticism, the category of art to which my novels belong, is based on the principle of volition and all that entails.)

 

A novel can certainly contain elements of fantasy, just as it can contain romance, adventure, political intrigue, and mystery, but containing elements of romance or fantasy does not make a book a romance or a fantasy if those elements are not the essential elements of the book -if they are not its defining characteristic.

 

Fantasy usually takes conventional values as a given. For example, the evil being battled is commonly a dark force that wishes to do evil- without any reason beyond that it is evil.

 

My books are novels that deal in important human themes involving the faculty of reason. I tell these stories through heroic characters.

 

The men who flew airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon had heroes. They did not believe that what they were doing was evil; they believed they were doing good. Why were they willing to die in order to kill indiscriminately? Why did they believe that what they were doing was good? What constituted evil in their minds? Who were their heroes?

 

Why are my heroes different than the heroes of people like that? To answer those sorts of questions requires that I convey intellectual information.

 

Those are the kinds of abstract concepts I write about which are absent from fantasy, as such. I have no desire to tell simplistic stories of good and evil driven by mysticism and magic. My novels instead, involve the nature of and projection of values.

 

My books were defined in the marketplace as fantasy purely because of business considerations, not essential characteristics. In the business of selling books, the fact that there are elements of magic in my novels and, far more importantly, that I am published by a fantasy publisher, nullifies every other consideration. If I were now to write a book about a travel agent going on a whale-watching cruise and the boat was captured by Islamic terrorists who intended to use it to deliver a dirty bomb into Boston harbor, and this book were published by my present publisher, and I used my real name, the book would be racked in fantasy -despite its content.

 

Because fantasy publishers make their living publishing fantasy, they seek out fantasy that will sell to the fantasy reader, so there is rarely any confusion. Most fantasy authors are very deliberate in their intent to write fantasy books. In my case, I have ended up with a good publisher who happens to be a fantasy publisher, among other things but they failed to see beyond the fantasy elements in the first book. Look at WIZARD'S FIRST RULE. What did my publisher insist be on the cover? A red dragon. Was a red dragon, per se, central to the story? No. But in the minds of unthinking individuals the existence of a red dragon in the story superseded all other aspects and defined the book, therefore it went on the cover.

 

So, my books were categorized according to one of the least important elements of their content - red dragons -at the expense of the most important element - human themes shared by every one of you.

 

I've finally succeeded in getting Tor to put a new cover on WIZARD'S FIRST RULE. What is the subject of the new cover? Two people. Are they central to the story? Yes. Is magic central to their story? No. What is? Volition. How is volition carried out? Through the thinking human mind of the characters as demonstrated by the plot Theme, Characterization, Plot. A novel.

 

Along with cover content, I've endeavored to mitigate confusion and misconception by having the imprint used on my books changed from the one that says "fantasy" to the generic "TOR" logo and by removing some of the more overt fantasy trappings, such as the sword on the title page. You will also observe that the series name -The Sword of Truth -is no longer used on the books' covers. But, because of marketplace realities, there are limits to what I can do to get this message across.

 

Yet there are those who rail at me because I don't behave like a fantasy author is "supposed" to. I don't follow the rules, as they see it.

 

There are those who focus exclusively on this least important element -magic - simply because people I don't know, despite my strenuous objections at the time, insisted on placing a red dragon on the cover of my work, and because of that, and who published the book, I was racked in bookstores as fantasy. As a result, in the minds of some readers I am for all time to be labeled as a “fantasy" author. So I must now follow some unstated laws of writing - I must know my place - because I've been mindlessly labeled a "fantasy" author? That, my friends, is bigotry.

 

I am not an obedient subservient cog of a group, slavishly following the group's conventions. I am a thinking individual acting of my own free will.

 

Shania Twain had a similar problem with country music fans who resented her because her music doesn't follow the constrained conventions of country music. She has risen above category names. For most of my fans, so have I.

 

Most of Shania Twain's fans are not regular country music fans. Most of my fans are not regular fantasy fans nor are they so bigoted that they think I must know my place and stay in it.

 

While my books do contain elements of fantasy, and I'm proud of those elements - just as I'm proud of the romance, the political intrigue, the mystery -those fantasy elements are not the essential characteristics that define my work.

 

A proper novel, with a true plot, must have ideas that drive the story. Action without psychological articulation is not a worthwhile plot. Those essential elements that make my books novels (and not the fantasy elements) are the fundamentals that are most important to me, So please keep in mind that, while I will be happy to entertain questions that pertain to the fantasy elements, those things just aren't central. Magic is but a tool I use to help tell important human stories. The magic isn't what matters -the characters do.

 

You might say that the magic is like a light used to illuminate someone skulking around in the dark. When people focus intently on the magic elements, it's as if, when I shine that light on the man lurking in the darkness, they are asking me, "Say, what kind of batteries do you have in that flashlight -are they disposable or are they the rechargeable kind? One time you said it took a fraction of second for the flashlight to turn on. Now you seem to be implying that it turned on instantly. I’m confused, which is it -a fraction of a second, or do you really mean instantly? Hey, let me ask you a question about voltage. .." They only want to know about my flashlight. I want to know what the man is doing mucking about in the darkness

[Orange Hippo]

Also,there is a character in SoT called The Creator,but that too is a common motif in fantasy. I think that it is alright to draw inspiration from other works, but i also find it odd that Goodkind used so many of the same motifs that RJ did.

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

Two of the things I find notable about him, as displayed in the quoted interview:

 

1. For the purpose of adding weight to his statement by making a lengthly list of different types of books, he uses "textbooks" and "geometry books," as if they geometry books weren't text books.

 

2. "Novelist." It's as if he just makes up new meanings for words to suit the primary purpose of the moment.

 

He seems to consider himself the ultimate source on everything book (indeed, on everything period)

 

The quoted text is less like an interview and more like an instruction.

[Spiffiness]

He just gets more and more preachy, doesn't he? It's like he's implying that fantasy doesn't have a plot or underlying ideas and can't have romance, political intrigue, or mystery, and his books are so far above all those other books defined as fantasy.

 

Personally, I read up to Naked Empire and just totally lost interest after that. The first ones were really good, even if there were similarities with WoT (or maybe because of them), and then he wandered away from the main thread of the series. He seemed to have used up a lot of paper establishing Jagang as the ultimate evil character and then promptly ran off to write about random people who have values contrary to what he believes in. Maybe he wrote those first books to lure in unsuspecting readers, then WHAM! You're hit with a giant baseball bat that says, "Agree with my ideas or you're stupid!"