Goodkind

[Mr Ares]

I don't really care one way or another for the literary spat or the similarities or lack thereof. I'm content to enjoy the Wheel of Time for what it is, and think that the success of the Sword of Truth is entirely due to the wizards first rule. The concept, not the book.

Personally, I'm a little bit in awe of Goodkind for the sheer contempt for his audience found in that rule, and his success despite that.

 

 

inb4...Oh, no, too late.

 

You should look around a bit before you post a thread of this nature. Then you would know it's a complete and total waste of time and that any appreciation for SoT and/or criticism of RJ and WoT is lost on the majority of the community here. Always going to fall on deaf ears. Or blind eyes. Or numb fingers. Depends on how you look at it I guess.

 

Hey mate, been a while since we've seen you around these parts!

 

This thread has obviously been rather tame so far compared to some of the old flame wars on the topic. Fairly reasoned up to this point I would say...doubt it will last though.

 

How you doing? But yeah, my gut tells me sooner rather than later this thread will descend into the madness driven rabidness that is SoT VS WoT lol.

Well, if we want to get a proper flame war started before Christmas, we'd better get a move on.

 

 

Say what you like. WoT was the greatest fantasy series of all time (sorry Mr. Tolkien). But Mr. Goodkind wrote a great fantasy series as well. Did he steal some ideas from Mr. Jordan? Perhaps. But I defy all of you to name me a fantasy author that didn't borrow from past writers (including the aforementioned Mr. Tolkien). All of them have and all of the future ones will. The fact that none of you like the idea the T.G. borrowed ideas from Mrs. A.R., can't detract from the simple truth that the ideas of man have always been expressed through the prose that some authors have decided to eximplify through novels. You may not agree with the stance Mr. T. Goodkind has taken, but the simple truth is that his novels have been well written and exciting to read.

One of the biggest problems people have with his works is that they don't consider them well written or exciting to read. His books are considered by many to be poorly written, repetitive, full of Mary Sue characters and one dimensionally evil villains, terrible characterisation, and a ham-fisted shoving of his ideology down the throats of his readers, by way of strawmen. Pacifists who are "armed only with their hatred for moral clarity" being a stand out example. If I were to compare with, say, China Mieville, another fantasy author who makes use of his political views in his books, I would point out that in Mieville's novels the good guys are flawed, they can be selfish, make bad choices, and they don't even have to win. Goodkind... well, his reputation is for shoving objectivism down his readers' throats in a way that says "this is the one truth!" The story should not be a slave to the ideology. Whether or not readers agree with Goodkind's objectivist views is beside the point. The problem is in how he goes about weaving his views into the story.

[b3arz3rg3r]

The big problem with Goodkind wasn't that he let's say borrowed a few concepts from RJ. I think that's alright as one doesn't steal the plot and does a good job of giving those concepts an original spin or tweak. No, the big problem with Goodkind was that he spent more effort on writing his personal social critique than on writing a good fantasy novel. And aside from the fact that I personally find Goodkind's ideal society absolutely horrifying, I just don't like a novel to be used as a tool of conversion.

Well, that and his absolute obsession with rape. Seriously, those unlived (I hope) fantasies of his are just too much.

 

Here's a good redux. I advise against playing the drinking game as you would end up dead from alcohol poisoning.

[XXX]

I read the first 2 books of SoT before I read any books of WoT. Well I finished WoT and am eagerly waiting for the last one. I do not care about SoT..why read the copy when you can read the original?

[andrewks]

Say what you like. WoT was the greatest fantasy series of all time (sorry Mr. Tolkien). But Mr. Goodkind wrote a great fantasy series as well. Did he steal some ideas from Mr. Jordan? Perhaps. But I defy all of you to name me a fantasy author that didn't borrow from past writers (including the aforementioned Mr. Tolkien). All of them have and all of the future ones will.

 

 

I think the issue is magnified because Goodkind and Jordan are contemporaries of one another sharing similar publishing dates. The fact that the beginning of EotW is very close to LotR and that Goodkind has many Ayn Rand references isn't a big deal because those books were written decades ago. So the ideas borrowed look like they are being celebrated rather than copied.

[Terez]

I don't really care one way or another for the literary spat or the similarities or lack thereof. I'm content to enjoy the Wheel of Time for what it is, and think that the success of the Sword of Truth is entirely due to the wizards first rule. The concept, not the book.

I have made this same argument before. It's a very appealing concept.

 

PS - Suttree gave the three quotes I usually give when this subject comes up. It's a good summary of the problem RJ had with Goodkind. Also, things like the fact that Goodkind insulted the rest of the fantasy genre while at the same time saying he doesn't read fantasy at all. He's oblivious.

[Ashaman Kovan]

inb4...Oh, no, too late.

 

You should look around a bit before you post a thread of this nature. Then you would know it's a complete and total waste of time and that any appreciation for SoT and/or criticism of RJ and WoT is lost on the majority of the community here. Always going to fall on deaf ears. Or blind eyes. Or numb fingers. Depends on how you look at it I guess.

 

Hey mate, been a while since we've seen you around these parts!

 

This thread has obviously been rather tame so far compared to some of the old flame wars on the topic. Fairly reasoned up to this point I would say...doubt it will last though.

 

How you doing? But yeah, my gut tells me sooner rather than later this thread will descend into the madness driven rabidness that is SoT VS WoT lol.

Well, if we want to get a proper flame war started before Christmas, we'd better get a move on.

 

Now to just come up with the perfect comment to instigate the hatred I can sense becoming palpable as I type.

[master]

While I definately prefer jordan to goodkind jordan isnt the best writer in the world either. I'm not saying that wot is a bad series but the characters are a bit stereotyped. Take mat for example. He was given a letter and was told it was important. ?Yet he did the complete opposite, Following the stereotype in the books that men are stubborn for the sake of it.

 

That said Jordan did do a lot better with certain things. I prefer channelling to additive/subtractive magic. even ith an unrealistic male/femal divide its still better designed than goodknds mess. Either that or I just prefer clear rules.And the pattern is an interesting design choice.

 

Anyway all authors ripoff each other and history. While some seem to do better than others jordan seems to be verygood at twisting sources to his own unique perspective. Like the white tower. reading through these articles My link it surprised me how much the tower was based off of convents.

[LeeM.Erickson]

I don't really care one way or another for the literary spat or the similarities or lack thereof. I'm content to enjoy the Wheel of Time for what it is, and think that the success of the Sword of Truth is entirely due to the wizards first rule. The concept, not the book.

I have made this same argument before. It's a very appealing concept.

 

PS - Suttree gave the three quotes I usually give when this subject comes up. It's a good summary of the problem RJ had with Goodkind. Also, things like the fact that Goodkind insulted the rest of the fantasy genre while at the same time saying he doesn't read fantasy at all. He's oblivious.

 

Yeah, I read the first two books of SoT and wasn't very impressed. But I'm firmly in the category of not liking him just based on the way I've seen him talk in interviews. The thing about not writing fantasy killed me. Tell that to the talking red dragon in your book.

[Majsju]

Main reason I despise goofkind is his writing. Granted, he did have a fairly good idea with the first book. But it is so poorly written it made me want to claw my eyes out. i have read poetry by emo teenagers that was better.

 

And then he has the nerve to lie about his blatant thefts from WOT. I am not upset that he stole things, everyone does that, including RJ. But RJ was honest about it, he went so far that he named sources we had not noticed when asked where his inspiration came from. Whereas goofkind not only lies about his thefts, he insults the people who calls him out about it.

[Mr Ares]

I don't really care one way or another for the literary spat or the similarities or lack thereof. I'm content to enjoy the Wheel of Time for what it is, and think that the success of the Sword of Truth is entirely due to the wizards first rule. The concept, not the book.

I have made this same argument before. It's a very appealing concept.

 

PS - Suttree gave the three quotes I usually give when this subject comes up. It's a good summary of the problem RJ had with Goodkind. Also, things like the fact that Goodkind insulted the rest of the fantasy genre while at the same time saying he doesn't read fantasy at all. He's oblivious.

 

Yeah, I read the first two books of SoT and wasn't very impressed. But I'm firmly in the category of not liking him just based on the way I've seen him talk in interviews. The thing about not writing fantasy killed me. Tell that to the talking red dragon in your book.

But it's not about dragons, it's about important human themes^TM. It's just a lot harder to put an important human theme on your cover than it is a dragon.

[trelkor]

Orem Utah: What do you think distinguishes your books from all of the other fantasy books out there, and why should readers choose to read your series?

 

Terry Goodkind:in most fantasy magic is... fun... That puts my books in a genre all their own.

[Dreggs Morlock]

Plagiarism would be valid criticism if Jordan actually had any original ideas himself, as opposed to chucking a load of mythology into a blender and making a few characters wizards.

 

Why was Goodkind not able to do that then without handpicking the ones Jordan had already used? Funny to that Goodkind denies any similarities while RJ just takes the high ground. That in itself is a very telling statement.

 

Also note usually when people discuss SoT having plagiarised WoT it is not universal archetypes or even any single similarity they are discussing. People can point to quite specific concepts he took such as the adam/female order of magicians/magic system with two sides in WoT amongst others things that aren't used all that often in Fantasy. It's the sheer number of similarities in regards to those types of things, not mythological archetypes that raise a red flag.

 

From USA Today 4 August 2003:

 

Haddonfield, NJ: Second Question - I've noticed similarities between your Sword of Truth series and Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series...(Black Sisterhood vs. Black Ajah; The Order vs. The Seanchan; Richard vs. Rand both discovering their powers, both have Nameless evil Gods...etc.) I've often voiced my suspicion that these two series might be occurring on the same world...how crazy am I?

 

Terry Goodkind: If you notice a similarity, then you probably aren't old enough to read my books.

 

Robert Jordan said:

From USA Today 5 January 2004:

 

Delmar, NY: Have you ever read or heard about the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind? After reading the series it is obvious many of the main ideas are copied from the WoT.

 

Robert Jordan: I'm aware of Mr. Goodkind.

 

 

Robert Jordan said:

Robert Jordan's blog 15 July 2006 - NO CHAMPAGNE YET

 

For Richard Scholten, I have never discussed anything whatsoever with Terry Goodkind. I suggest that you check the publication dates of his books and mine. Of course, he says he has never read me, or so I'm told, and I would never contradict a statement like that. Just check out the pub dates on his books, and the pub dates on mine, those that contain the similarities you speak of.

Yes, all fantasy can point to other fantasy as inspiration... but what genre is truly completely original? I find THIS arguement the weakest when comparing early Goodkind with Jordan. But Jordan's maturity when dealing with this topic has always impressed me, even when he was at his end, he chose the high ground.

 

Goodkind? Well...

 

The line from Goodkind about being "old enough to read my books" turned me off on his works, I'm sad to say. So, if we notice the White Elephant in the room, we are all immature? Or is it only the young have the guts to point it out?

 

We are the reason they can live off the writing they do, being the ones who provide the resources due the the pleasure their works provide us; insults might not be the best of ideas...

 

It speaks of his character, not of his characters.

[Vinny]

so i am reading the sword of truth series for the 2nd time in a lon long while. these last few years have been a WOT overdose for me. Ive always wondered what Jordan had against goodkind. i think they are both great writers.

 

so who knows? Terez maybee or Luckers. I would love some info iin this general thing.

 

No offense but for my money, Goodkind is one of the worst writers in the English language, the William McGonagall of prose. Hey, my X-Agent brokered his million $$ contract (if he'd only done 1/2 as good for me!) which still staggers me.

[ElusiveAthena]

Malveth, just because you disagree with an author's beliefs or the beliefs being promoted in their story, doesn't mean that their grasp of the English language is necessarily atrocious. I think Goodkind writes rather well - certainly better than Stephanie Meyer.

[Sid]

That's some endorsement there.

[ElusiveAthena]

I know, but saying Goodkind is "one of the worst writers in the English language"? I'm just showing that there are many people worse who are more successful too.

[Orderofolde]

The blatant plagiarism is probably the main reason, although at least when he was ripping off Wheel of Time he was stealing something good. Then later on Goodkind's inner Objectivist broke free and he began ripping off Ayn Rand instead and everything went to hell.

 

Then of course there's the CHICKEN THAT WAS EVIL MANIFEST and the evil pacifists from Naked Empire that dear old Terry will never, ever live down.

If there was ever any doubt over SoT copying WoT, would TOR have published both authors? I'm sorry, RJ told a great tale as did Mr. Goodkind, but even RJ borrowed heavily from LoTR he just didn't agree people would go along so readily with some wizard showing up and naming them the savior of all. RJ modeled his characters and lore told within his books heavily off Mythology and oral histories. He was clever enough to use modern day things twisting them to suit his purpose such as Ann Landers being "Anla the Wise Counselor" and Glen Armstrong and his rocket to be the tale of, "Lem who rode in the belly of an eagle of fire to the moon." I have to smile, it's brilliant. But fantasy follows specific lines leading from A to B and on to C. Goodkind wrote a lot of original plot and story line, but unlike the similarities between RJ and Goodkind, no one's bantered RJ about his borrowing heavily from Tolkien and from Mythology. I suppose that is because he has admitted it openly as well as his scorn for the easy beginnings to such stories. Sure, RJ pointed at the release dates of the books as to who came out with it first, but having the same publisher... In the interest of capitalism, were I the publisher I'd stagger genre-similar releases from two top-sellers apart from each other giving RJ fans an alternate read between RJ releases, and RJ's books between Goodkind releases. (Also both had the same TOR editors apart from Harriet, and editors can be harsh saying what works and what sells. There could have been crossover. Sorry GK, this is good, but maybe if we make this here into this, it will sell better. RJ, this is awesome, but if we polish this up here with this...)

 

You are going to have the similarities, a good side, and a bad side and women are more fun to write as being baddies than men. But RJ didn't have magic. It's the One Power, sort of like "The Force" in Star Wars only better. Some nods to that Gray guy that wrote Men are from Mars with the separation of the two halves at work? We can't all look at things and assume there was copying. There would have been lawsuits, and a publisher wouldn't have stuck with someone if it werre even possible. I've seen here and there slight nods to Lucas in RJ's work with Rand's blades of fire and some other small things. He even has references to objects like jets and helicopters, and gee, life experience of a few tours in 'Nam riding as a waist gunner probably had something to do with that, but the average reader who didn't know that rolls their eyes and thinks of how original flutter-wings and jocars are when they are nothing but helicopters and planes.

 

Great ideas tend to stick around like bad smells, everyone sees or reads about them and thinks they are cool, or maybe it's a good idea, but you have an idea that one-ups what you read...I have both series on my shelf, Goodkind's later books kind of make me scratch my head, but then some of RJ's have been filler to advance only certain character's arcs and weren't my favorite however they were better than the average books I could have picked up. Once you are well read in all the various major fantasy series by Stackpole, Goodkind, Modesitt, Jordan, Tolkien, all the newer and shorter series like Sanderson you see similarities be it nods to others' works or something that naturally crops up in the flow of things. Modesitt has used a chaos wizzard's fire and its effects similar to Balefire. RJ made it his with the reversed colors and ceasing to exist bit.

 

By the way, I could have sworn that RJ did a professional comment/review supporting Goodkind's books on one of his earlier ones released. I saw that on the back with other review from various newspapers and magazines and shook my head as I'd only recently heard of the conflict a few weeks prior to seeing it when I was going through my books. I distinctly remember laughing about it. I can't remember the book, though. I thought maybe TOR prompted it on a reprint to settle us fans over any problems between the two. It read something like Goodkind was a great and upcoming writer whose world was original and ideas fresh or some sort. Come to think of it...it was on one of the first pages inside the book iirc. I was looking at the order of the SoT books as I wanted to get the latest Richard and Kahlan book. So one of the first 5-6 somewhere there's an RJ review on it. I know I kind of rambled, but I guess my message is you have to take things as they are, at face value, and appreciate what they are. I was reading both series together and it took reading some posts on DM before I took another look and was like, "What? No, really?" and after looking, yes, similarities exist but the character builds are different, and the rules and worlds are different. The closest I thought of those Sisters in GK's world and their throwing things were like the glave off Beastmaster, and I couldn't fault him for that since it was cool and I liked that movie too.

[Barid Bel Medar]

eh, im not too keen on GK's books. I mean, I wouldn't say it was terrible, but it certainly isn't great quality. But, crap like Twilight is popular, so quality definitely doesn't = success.

 

He pushes his ideals (alot of messed up crap) on to the readers. From interviews etc.. I gather he does it because he thinks people are stupid. Putting ideologies in books are fine, but don't ram it down peoples throats is bad. No matter how right or wrong your ideas are, you come off as an arrogant ass doing what he does. I also agree most hate comes from his utter contempt of his readers. Just reading some of the things he says...

 

In fact, I am not sure if his contempt isn't well founded. If you can get away with basically offending your main audience and still be one of the more successful authors, well... it makes you think.

 

In any case, apart from his personality, id give it about 4/10. the first book is pretty awesome, but it goes downhill, IMO.

[LeeM.Erickson]

Oh, come on...the chicken that is not a chicken is an obvious rip-off of the Sword That is Not a Sword

[SuperFade]

Oh, come on...the chicken that is not a chicken is an obvious rip-off of the Sword That is Not a Sword

 

I would kill to read a scene where Richard channels the One Power his Gift through the CHICKEN THAT WAS EVIL MANIFEST in order to slay the Dark One the Keeper of the Underworld.

[Bavarian Raven]

Those who can enjoy both and display both series next to one another in their bookshelves are a rare and different breed for sure....

 

i'll stick my neck out and say I enjoyed BOTH series o.O

 

for me the wheel of time was very wordy and had a lot of "filler" which dragged on and on (especially on my second readthrough of the series), whereas the SOT seemed to read faster/quicker imho. both stories had their merits and their pitfalls (both had entire books that could have been axed/combined into other story arcs), and both had their similarities to other novels/ideas/concepts.

 

as for the Goodkind comment about not being old enough to read "my" books - i actually have to agree. little kids shouldnt be reading about rape/etc... >.>

[Suttree]

Those who can enjoy both and display both series next to one another in their bookshelves are a rare and different breed for sure....

 

i'll stick my neck out and say I enjoyed BOTH series o.O

 

for me the wheel of time was very wordy and had a lot of "filler" which dragged on and on (especially on my second readthrough of the series), whereas the SOT seemed to read faster/quicker imho. both stories had their merits and their pitfalls (both had entire books that could have been axed/combined into other story arcs), and both had their similarities to other novels/ideas/concepts.

 

People seem to be missing the point. While many fantasies stories share universal myths and archetypes, SOT uses a number of quite specific items taken from the WoT that are not a dime a dozen in fantasy. It is the sheer number of those type of similarities, that causes people to quite rightly call foul.

[ElusiveAthena]

Well I read SoT almost immediately after reading WoT for the first time, and I didn't think "Oh, this sounds familiar" except in "Faith of the Fallen" about the statue and I recognised "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand, not Jordan, but it wasn't a rip-off, it was Goodkind's take on the idea of using art to express his beliefs. And whatever people say, although he may take it to an extreme level, I agree to a large extent with Goodkind's individualist creed. When I create art, I do it to please myself first and foremost. For someone to tell me that it is my "duty" to use my talents to express the authorities' opinion of what humanity is would be appalling, and I would rather destroy my work than be a puppet.

[Mr Ares]

Malveth, just because you disagree with an author's beliefs or the beliefs being promoted in their story, doesn't mean that their grasp of the English language is necessarily atrocious. I think Goodkind writes rather well - certainly better than Stephanie Meyer.

Goodkind does not have a great grasp of the english language. That is aside from his insistence on shoving his personal beliefs down the throats of his readers via poorly thought out strawmen. If he were a master of the english language, he would not have given us such delights as "At that feeling, he was surprised to feel the thing in him that had come awake rise up." Yes, his thing rose up, just before he jaw-kicked a little girl. Maybe Goodkind had Kenneth Williams in mind to play Richard. "Oooh, matron, my thing's come awake and it's just risen up." Simply put, no matter what the content of TG's books, the way they are written alone is enough to see them attract a measure of scorn. Couple that with him shoving his philosophy down people's throats and his filling his books with ultra-violence and rape (not to mention all th almost-rape - wouldn't want anything bad to happen to a main character, now), and how he comes across in interviews, it's really not hard to see why he's such a popular target for mockery. But the fact remains that he is a poor prose writer. And being better than Stephenie Meyer (yes, a woman who can't even spell her own name correctly) is not an achievement. It is damning with faint praise.

[AlwaysLurking]

Everything said here is all well and good.

 

I am a reader that cares not about what other people think about what books I like or don’t like.

 

I loved LOTR, hated the Hobbit.

I loved Eddings 4 series, muddled thru Elric, thoroughly enjoyed almost all of Modesitt’s work. There are many many more that I can include here, but bottom line is that I like what I like, I don’t know why I do, but it is what it is.

 

Now onto SoT, and WoT.

 

For me, both of these series started out awesome, and then dropped out in the middle.

 

I read the first 3 WoT books, then skimmed to the end of all of the rest of them in the bookstore.

 

I read the first 2 SoT books, and then skimmed to the end of the rest of them in the bookstore.

 

The Gathering Storm put WoT back on my reading list (mostly because I had fallen in love with the Mistborn books), and I went back and re-read (or read as the case may be) the entire series in preparation for the last 2 books. As for SoT, somehow I picked up Chainfire, and fell in love with the series again, and went back and re-read all the books I had just skimmed thru.

 

I may be an ignorant reader, but I don’t pick up a novel and try and compare it to other works and figure out who copied who, I read it and decide if I liked it on its own merits.

 

I understand why some would not like SoT from a philosophical standpoint, Goodkind is not apolitical in his writing, but then neither is Modesitt, and those two are pretty much polar opposites, yet I enjoy them both.

 

Call me a non-believer, but until Brandon put WoT back on the map for me, I would never have been able to enjoy the rest of RJ’s work past book 3. And if Goodkind had not finally settled down and started pointing his series at a target, I would never have read all his work either. Eddings had it correct, 5 books is the max you can go without loosing a lot of readers without at least working to a conclusion. These long series loose so many readers because they can sense that there is no conclusion coming for years, and that may have been what made the middle books loose it for me until I could see the end was near.

 

To me, RJ made me love his world, TG made me love his characters. Neither made me love his books more or less, I just enjoyed them differently.