Goodkind

[trench]

Oh Mr.Ares I had forgotten all about the kick to the little girl's jaw. What a paragon of virtue Mr. Goodkind created.

[b3arz3rg3r]

Oh Mr.Ares I had forgotten all about the kick to the little girl's jaw. What a paragon of virtue Mr. Goodkind created.

but that was a fat evil little girl, that makes it alright for a paragon of virtue to shatter her jaw.

[Luckers]

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.

 

You realise your one example was written by Brandon, not Jordan?

 

I mean don't get me wrong, I've no problem criticizing RJ--the Nynaeve/Elayne circus arc was very poorly managed...

 

But yeah....

[Pilz]

There are numerous things you can criticize Goodkind about. But to do so with this scene (taken out of context) is a bit inappropriate in my opinion. This 'girl' is an evil, sadistic little bitch, who was about to torture Richard (who had already gone through weeks of torture at this stage). More significantly, the actions by Richard show that he has been able to protect his will power despite being outwardly 'broken' through torture. This becomes the main protagonist's first use of magic, although he does not know it at the time. Similar to Rand 'healing' Bela in TEOTW.

 

It would be fair to criticize the SOT in how the 'evil' in that series is a bit dark and extreme for fantasy. But you could also criticize RJ that the the 'evil' in WOT is just the opposite, and at times borders on whimsical.

 

It's all good, though :)

[randsc]

I don't like Goodkind. His writing is not up-to-snuff.

 

Now, as to why people here froth at the mouth when his name is mentioned:

 

1. The similarities between the SoT and the WoT, which are really just similarities in the original source material. Richard discovering his powers in the same way as Rand is proof of plagiarism? Absurd. This theme is so common it has a name. Both SoT and WoT are Ugly Duckling stories. The fact that the Dark Sisterhood are a ripoff of the Bene Geserit, I mean, uh, the Aes Sedai? Silly. Magic system with "two sides" Please. Oldest story ever told. Almost literally. Satan is a fallen seraphim.

 

2. Politics, as was alluded to above. There are a lot of people here who are really offended by the notion that a fantasy author might explore Objectivist themes in his work.

 

3. Lots of people really strongly object to the fact that the only gay character in the SoT was a bad guy.

 

4. Goodkin isn't Jordan, and must therefore never be mentioned in the same breath. Befoul not the name/memory of the master by suggesting that other people did, you know, more or less the same thing. c.f., Martin, George.

[b3arz3rg3r]

3. Lots of people really strongly object to the fact that the only gay character in the SoT was a bad guy.

 

There were a couple of "good" lesbians as well, if you can call those magical torture girls good.

[randsc]

3. Lots of people really strongly object to the fact that the only gay character in the SoT was a bad guy.

 

There were a couple of "good" lesbians as well, if you can call those magical torture girls good.

 

 

But as people here will happily tell you, that doesn't count.

[Suttree]

I don't like Goodkind. His writing is not up-to-snuff.

 

This really should be the single most important point in how Goodkind is judged. If he was even a middling author perhaps more people would overlook some of the other things they call him to account for.

[randsc]

Fair enough. But just being a bad writer shouldn't really inspire the sort of rage we sometimes see when this guy's name in mentioned. There are lots and lots of bad writers out there.

[trelkor]

from what ive seen hes pompous, and that is enough for the rage

[SuperFade]

Fair enough. But just being a bad writer shouldn't really inspire the sort of rage we sometimes see when this guy's name in mentioned. There are lots and lots of bad writers out there.

 

Part of the rage is probably to do with how successful he is despite him being such a bad writer. It's the same reason why Twilight and Eragon have such massive hatedoms - the belief that they don't deserve to make millions when their work is of such poor quality.

[randsc]

Oh, c'mon now. RJ was no shrinking violet, and often enough displayed little patience for fools. I'm not saying he was as bad as Goodkind, but if our standard is that authors can't be arrogant pricks, we aren't going to have many books to choose from.

[randsc]

Fair enough. But just being a bad writer shouldn't really inspire the sort of rage we sometimes see when this guy's name in mentioned. There are lots and lots of bad writers out there.

 

Part of the rage is probably to do with how successful he is despite him being such a bad writer. It's the same reason why Twilight and Eragon have such massive hatedoms - the belief that they don't deserve to make millions when their work is of such poor quality.

 

I don't get that. What does "deserve" even mean, in this context? What do I care if someone whose work I don't personally care for makes a lot of money? Myself, I haven't ever heard any rap or hip hop that I like. I don't care if other people do, and if the artists make a lot of money. Hate of this sort (which is often directed at Jordan, as well, btw) strikes me as nothing more than envy.

[Suttree]

Love how Randsc has a nose for when the most incendiary topic is going to pop up on the boards. Doesn't matter how long he's been gone, a thread like this starts and he will arrive to be the hardline contrarian.

 

I for one(despite us rarely agreeing) tip my hat to that.

[Guest PiotrekS]

Randsc, nice to see you here after quite a long time.

[b3arz3rg3r]

Fair enough. But just being a bad writer shouldn't really inspire the sort of rage we sometimes see when this guy's name in mentioned. There are lots and lots of bad writers out there.

 

Part of the rage is probably to do with how successful he is despite him being such a bad writer. It's the same reason why Twilight and Eragon have such massive hatedoms - the belief that they don't deserve to make millions when their work is of such poor quality.

 

I don't get that. What does "deserve" even mean, in this context? What do I care if someone whose work I don't personally care for makes a lot of money? Myself, I haven't ever heard any rap or hip hop that I like. I don't care if other people do, and if the artists make a lot of money. Hate of this sort (which is often directed at Jordan, as well, btw) strikes me as nothing more than envy.

 

Your comparison doesn't fit. What would fit is if you loved hip hop or rap and then there's this one guy who can't rhyme, can't sing and produces one lousy track after another but who somehow still becomes famous among those who only have a passing interest in the music and is suddenly seen as a representative of the entire music style.

 

It isn't envy. We are so critical with those kinds of writers because we love fantasy and regard them as a travesty, a perversion of something we idolize. I'm not sure how it is in the US, but in Germany fantasy literature is still far from mainstream though there has been lots of improvement over the last two decades. Ten or fifteen years ago whenever I brought a fantasy book to school or some other place I mostly got strange glances and condescending comments that I would read something like that. Then, when books like Harry Potter, Eragon or Twilight, which I regard as inferior products, come along and get publicly acclaimed and many of those who had looked down on me start to read because of that publicity it annoys me. When I talk to people about fantasy who don't know much about it their first associations are stuff like Twilight and Harry Potter and that means something I detest is being made the representative for the genre I love.

It's not a very mature way of looking at things, but then again people usually aren't mature about things they like.

[SuperFade]

Your comparison doesn't fit. What would fit is if you loved hip hop or rap and then there's this one guy who can't rhyme, can't sing and produces one lousy track after another but who somehow still becomes famous among those who only have a passing interest in the music and is suddenly seen as a representative of the entire music style.

 

It isn't envy. We are so critical with those kinds of writers because we love fantasy and regard them as a travesty, a perversion of something we idolize. I'm not sure how it is in the US, but in Germany fantasy literature is still far from mainstream though there has been lots of improvement over the last two decades. Ten or fifteen years ago whenever I brought a fantasy book to school or some other place I mostly got strange glances and condescending comments that I would read something like that. Then, when books like Harry Potter, Eragon or Twilight, which I regard as inferior products, come along and get publicly acclaimed and many of those who had looked down on me start to read because of that publicity it annoys me. When I talk to people about fantasy who don't know much about it their first associations are stuff like Twilight and Harry Potter and that means something I detest is being made the representative for the genre I love.

It's not a very mature way of looking at things, but then again people usually aren't mature about things they like.

 

Indeed. Robert Jordan has his problems, certainly. He definitely needed a better editor, and the entire episode with Mat and Tylin shows he wasn't above putting his own...interests...into the text. The reams and reams of filler that added nothing to the story should have been axed without question. On the other hand, his work isn't such a disaster that it has its own frothing hatedom in the same way that Goodkind, Meyer and Paolini do. He clearly put a lot of thought into the setting, did a tremendous amount of research and did his utmost to keep everything internally consistent.

 

This is more than can be said for the Sword of Truth. Richard is unquestionably a Mary Sue and everything he does is Right with anyone who disagrees with him shown to be Wrong in no uncertain terms. He repeatedly demonstrates that he is prepared to murder innocents in order to achieve his goals and demonstrates zero remorse for any killings he does perform. And yet he is treated unironically as a paragon of virtue, a triumph of the individual and a shining beacon of righteousness. Anything and everything can be solved by him talking at people for any length of time. If I remember correctly, in one of the later books Richard talks for an entire chapter. And the scariest thing is, Richard's views are, by his own admission, Goodkind's own.

 

SoT is so full of flaws I don't know where to begin. Actually I do - lack of consistency. Goodkind breaks the rules of his created world multiple times in the first book alone, particularly the rules governing how the eponymous sword actually works. Then you have the four straight pages going into loving detail about how Richard is tortured, along with his entire relationship with Denna, which makes the Mat - Tylin scene seem pure and wholesome by comparison. Then there's Goodkind's creepy fixation on rape, and how often Kahlan is nearly raped, and how Richard gets raped by Denna whilst being tortured by her, and how various evil minions love going out for a spot of light raping, etc.

 

Then you have the cartoonishly evil villains, which is particularly ironic since Goodkind himself bemoaned the fantasy convention of a dark force that wishes to do evil simply for evil's sake. Okay, so WoT villains leave a lot to be desired and most have pretty flimsy motivations. The Sword of Truth villains, however, are on a whole other level of monodimensional. They delight in their evilness, act obnoxiously at every possible opportunity and are generally devoid of morality. Just having one villain like this wouldn't be an issue, but it's the same for every. Single. One. Having most be ridiculous strawmen doesn't help.

[randsc]

Fair enough. But just being a bad writer shouldn't really inspire the sort of rage we sometimes see when this guy's name in mentioned. There are lots and lots of bad writers out there.

 

Part of the rage is probably to do with how successful he is despite him being such a bad writer. It's the same reason why Twilight and Eragon have such massive hatedoms - the belief that they don't deserve to make millions when their work is of such poor quality.

 

I don't get that. What does "deserve" even mean, in this context? What do I care if someone whose work I don't personally care for makes a lot of money? Myself, I haven't ever heard any rap or hip hop that I like. I don't care if other people do, and if the artists make a lot of money. Hate of this sort (which is often directed at Jordan, as well, btw) strikes me as nothing more than envy.

 

Your comparison doesn't fit. What would fit is if you loved hip hop or rap and then there's this one guy who can't rhyme, can't sing and produces one lousy track after another but who somehow still becomes famous among those who only have a passing interest in the music and is suddenly seen as a representative of the entire music style.

 

It isn't envy. We are so critical with those kinds of writers because we love fantasy and regard them as a travesty, a perversion of something we idolize. I'm not sure how it is in the US, but in Germany fantasy literature is still far from mainstream though there has been lots of improvement over the last two decades. Ten or fifteen years ago whenever I brought a fantasy book to school or some other place I mostly got strange glances and condescending comments that I would read something like that. Then, when books like Harry Potter, Eragon or Twilight, which I regard as inferior products, come along and get publicly acclaimed and many of those who had looked down on me start to read because of that publicity it annoys me. When I talk to people about fantasy who don't know much about it their first associations are stuff like Twilight and Harry Potter and that means something I detest is being made the representative for the genre I love.

It's not a very mature way of looking at things, but then again people usually aren't mature about things they like.

 

I suppose it is fair to say that my self-image isn't bound up in what other people think of the books I read. Maybe that's why I don't understand.

[randsc]

Oh, I've been lurking around. But I'm afraid the topics on offer have mostly bored me. We really need Sanderson to finish this bitch so we have something new to talk about.

[ElusiveAthena]

 

Your comparison doesn't fit. What would fit is if you loved hip hop or rap and then there's this one guy who can't rhyme, can't sing and produces one lousy track after another but who somehow still becomes famous among those who only have a passing interest in the music and is suddenly seen as a representative of the entire music style.

 

No doubt some people feel that way about many modern singers or rappers who are very popular right now.

 

It isn't envy. We are so critical with those kinds of writers because we love fantasy and regard them as a travesty, a perversion of something we idolize. I'm not sure how it is in the US, but in Germany fantasy literature is still far from mainstream though there has been lots of improvement over the last two decades. Ten or fifteen years ago whenever I brought a fantasy book to school or some other place I mostly got strange glances and condescending comments that I would read something like that. Then, when books like Harry Potter, Eragon or Twilight, which I regard as inferior products, come along and get publicly acclaimed and many of those who had looked down on me start to read because of that publicity it annoys me. When I talk to people about fantasy who don't know much about it their first associations are stuff like Twilight and Harry Potter and that means something I detest is being made the representative for the genre I love.

It's not a very mature way of looking at things, but then again people usually aren't mature about things they like.

 

To a large extent I understand and agree with your argument - I feel the same way about art. For example, when my father and I went to an exhibition on Pre-Raphaelite art, the woman at the desk in the gallery told us to go elsewhere because the Contemporary Art exhibition was so much more relevant. Needless to say, we both went in, and it was a fantastic exhibition, and very inspiring.

 

I think this is swiftly becoming a argument about personal judgements. You believe it's written badly. You also believe Harry Potter is written badly. I like SoT, while I don't think HP is a masterpiece of prose, I think the storyline has a lot to recommend it, and at the risk of being looked at down the elevated noses of several people in this thread, I will say that I like it. Now, sadly, I know people who have never read the HP books, and never will, not because they've read the books for themselves and made a judgement that it's bad, but because they've seen the colourful covers, (I assume also they've never read Terry Pratchett?)seen that it's hyped in the media, seen a few comments like yours and assumed that it's a "perversion of the fantasy genre". I also know a girl with depression who read HP and decided not to commit suicide. Everyone has their own reaction to a book. Personally I don't care about "condescending glances" when I read a fantasy book. I read it; I make a judgement. That other people disagree is alright with me. But I think it's important to express my own opinion.

[b3arz3rg3r]

I suppose it is fair to say that my self-image isn't bound up in what other people think of the books I read. Maybe that's why I don't understand.

You can apply the same to everything. Whether it's books, music, sports, profession etc. People want others to like or atleast to respect what they like and what they do and I doubt you are an exception.

 

 

No doubt some people feel that way about many modern singers or rappers who are very popular right now.

 

Like I said only those people who actually like that particular style of music count. Those who don't like it can't be compared.

 

 

To a large extent I understand and agree with your argument - I feel the same way about art. For example, when my father and I went to an exhibition on Pre-Raphaelite art, the woman at the desk in the gallery told us to go elsewhere because the Contemporary Art exhibition was so much more relevant. Needless to say, we both went in, and it was a fantastic exhibition, and very inspiring.

 

I think this is swiftly becoming a argument about personal judgements. You believe it's written badly. You also believe Harry Potter is written badly. I like SoT, while I don't think HP is a masterpiece of prose, I think the storyline has a lot to recommend it, and at the risk of being looked at down the elevated noses of several people in this thread, I will say that I like it. Now, sadly, I know people who have never read the HP books, and never will, not because they've read the books for themselves and made a judgement that it's bad, but because they've seen the colourful covers, (I assume also they've never read Terry Pratchett?)seen that it's hyped in the media, seen a few comments like yours and assumed that it's a "perversion of the fantasy genre". I also know a girl with depression who read HP and decided not to commit suicide. Everyone has their own reaction to a book. Personally I don't care about "condescending glances" when I read a fantasy book. I read it; I make a judgement. That other people disagree is alright with me. But I think it's important to express my own opinion.

 

It isn't about the condescension I got 15 years ago, it never stopped me from reading a book. I was making a point how many of us have idealized fantasy literature when it was more of a fringe interest. Sure there was plenty of bad stuff even back then, but it was a lot easier to ignore because it didn't appear in the mainstream.

[Sloth]

I enjoy the Sword of Truth series enough to re-read them from time to time. While I do agree that it has gone downhill some since the third book, I still enjoyed the 8 books that followed. (Especially Faith of the Fallen and the Chainfire trilogy.)

 

Obviously, I also enjoy the Wheel of Time series (or I wouldn't be here). As someone who has read both series up until the most current books, here is my personal analysis:

 

Better writer?

RJ, definitely.

 

Better plot?

WoT, by a slight margin. (A little too tricky and long winded for it's own good.)

 

Characterization?

WoT, again, by a slight margin. I could do without the fifty or sixty characters that are introduced, usually never seen again, yet are referenced from time to time leaving me asking "who the hell was that?" Still, that's better than not bothering to develop any characters outside of Richard Rahl's immediate circle of friends, I suppose.

 

Magic system?

WoT.

 

Which series do I personally prefer more?

WoT.

 

Other thoughts..

The majority of TG's books are 20% repetition/recap. The Omen Machine, TG's latest book, is terrible. It's a poorly written, poorly developed, long winded short story with no creative input whatsoever.

[Vinny]

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.

 

I didn't say a word about his beliefs!

His writing is absolute unadulterated crap.

He writes as if he is purposely trying to murder the English language out of insane malice.

Meyer doesn't even write. At least Goodkind has (laughable) literary pretensions, Meyer is a hobbyist who stumbled into mega-success, she doesn't even count.

[LeeM.Erickson]

Your comparison doesn't fit. What would fit is if you loved hip hop or rap and then there's this one guy who can't rhyme, can't sing and produces one lousy track after another but who somehow still becomes famous among those who only have a passing interest in the music and is suddenly seen as a representative of the entire music style.

 

His name is Li'l Wayne

[Dreggs Morlock]

When the "sisters" showed up at Richard's door, willing to kill themselves in order to get him to be taught by them, Goodkind lost me. Really?? How does dying further your cause, when... wait. WAIT.

 

Why am I even trying to figure out POVs of characters that were created to die?

 

I cannot abide authors who's writing style includes the expectation of their fans to "suspend their disbelief", to plagarize Hillary Clinton. "She betrays him with her own blood." Really? How can anyone read that part of his series without thinking, "OK... I guess that makes sense. Well, a little. Not really, but I've already invested all this time..."

 

The harder we pushed Jordan for explainations, the more we realized he HAD thought everything through. He was a man who expected his audience to be as clever as he was in his creation.

 

Goodkind insults his audience when he is hit with legitimate questions he obviously has no answers for. The sad truth is, there could be a lot to like with his writing, if he were to put the time in to think it through, and fix the problems. McKiernan completely stole Tolkien's plot-lines with his first few books, but he put so much time in making sure the story was solid, he was forgiven by most fans; it also helped when he admitted in the preface of the Silver Call and Dark tower Trilogy that they WERE inspired by Tolkien.

 

Many fantasy readings are made happy by well written books, even the most unoriginal ones. But don't insult our intelligence.