Yeah, I would've liked it so much better if they had been at the battle of Minas Tirith.

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.

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

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?

We've discussed whether or not it Goodkind is a liar, and there was no resolution to that.

But suffice to say that no matter where any of these ideas came from, the number of similarities makes it impossible for me (and a lot of people) to enjoy both series.

I agree. It certainly isn't healthy, and I think it is tied in with him being so hard on himself. Once Moiraine shows up, he'll cry at the sight of her, and laugh, since she always tops his list.

This unbelievably sexist comment -- which I hope is only a joke -- makes me wonder, did you refer to me as a "him" earlier because you assumed that anyone disagreeing with Mashiara must be male? Even though I'd already referred to myself as a woman in a previous post? Or was it a completely unrelated mistake? Be honest

lol. Believe me, I was joking.

Also, it was an unrelated mistake, I wasn't thinking about your gender when I said that to Brainfire.

Well, as I said, she is a woman. ;)

By the way, Masharia, check your messages. I sent you one. I assume if you didn't know how to quote, you will need help finding that too.

At the top of the screen, in the middle, right above where it says

"Dragonmount Forums > Wheel of Time > General Wheel of Time Discussion > Gritting my teeth against Rand being so sexist"

there will be something that says "My messages." Click on that, then scroll down to see the message I left. There should be a reply button, just like on a regular post.

Actually, that was a woman. ;)

Anyways, I think she was going on the assumption that the ability for females to channel would ensure that there would not be a patriarchal society, that they would at least be considered equal.

Granted that the women have their own issues, but none of them are neurotic enough to compare to Rand, with his list of dead women.

Here is a site with a pretty good article on this Click here

The world of the Wheel of Time has a three thousand year history of subtle female domination. The cultures and characters are developed accordingly. In our world, perhaps, bristling relationships between men and women are not so commonplace... but Jordan has a unique view on society. He seems to suggest that men would have a much harder time accepting female dominance than women in our own culture have historically accepted male rule. There are nations in Randland where men are treated like second-class citizens. But Jordan is not catering his series to women exclusively. His male characters are equally strong, and it seems that his world is on the cusp of an era where balance will be restored, and men will reestablish their equality with women.

Granted, no females go around with a list of men who have died in their heads, but what they have done:

In Ebou Dar, and presumably other places, men are seen as second-class citizens.

Tylin forcing Mat to be her sex toy.

The catechism "There is no wind so strong..." trying to make it seem like men have the weaker powers

The numerous harrumphs, and frequent use of the word "Men," as a derrogatory term. (God, there are innumerable examples)

Tracing the succession through females (in Andor).

I'll have to compose a list later, but you get the idea...

Call it "chivalry" if you want, sexism is sexism. There is nothing a man can do that a woman cannot. The attitute that men should protect women is incredibly 17th century, and it sickens me to see that certain people still want to follow it. For all the guys out there who agree with Rand's notion to some degree, would you not feel insulted if some group of people out there wanted to protect you especially because they thought you were weaker? Whatever happened to equality?

 

 

Now that some people have metioned it, most of the Randland characters are pretty sexist, both the women and men. In fact, I cannot think of one major character off the top of my head who seems to believe in complete equality for men and women. I'm hoping RJ doesn't take his characters' views...

Well, first of all, if you want to debate sexism, create a thread in General Discussion about it, and we can talk then (tell us if you do, because I wouldn't mind talking about it, its just this is not the place.)

Second of all, glad you noticed that the women in the books are sexist too. I can't remember how many times a woman (Egwene of Nynaeve or someone else) says something like "Men!" with a harrumph. Or even the little catechism about "There is no fire so fierce that wind cannot snuff it out, no rock that water cannot wear away." seems a little sexist too. It's how the women make themselves and their abilities seem better.

I definitely concur with that.

Just click on the quote button at the right hand corner of the post you want to quote.

Anyways, here is something I find interesting: Instead of a patriarchal society like the one we live in, Randlanders find themselves in a matriarchal society, primarily because men who can channel are a danger.

So wouldn't you think that instead of the males being protective of the females, as they are in real life (and were particularly in the past, chivalrous times), that the females should be the ones taking care of the men?

Anyways, I guess it does make sense that the men in Randland still feel the need to be chivalrous, since only about 1% of the population can channel, so most women would still need protection.

Also, when it comes down to it, although "discrimination" may seem to carry a negative connotation, I don't think being sexist is all that bad. At least, to the extent that we are protective of females.

Because they aren't stronger, as a whole, than men. And men probably don't always make the wisest choices, compared to females, since men are so testosterone-driven.

I envision a man as a doer and a woman as a thinker, though of course, there is considerable overlap.

I think that if men protect women with their abilities, and women protect men with their abilities, we would all be a lot better off than by trying to make it on our own.

But you know, of course, that the patriarchal society we live in today is probably result of the Catholic Church trying to further the idea of females as the "weaker sex," in an attempt to suppress worship of "pagan" fertility deities. Or at least, this is what I believe.

Although I think the feminist movement may be going a bit overboard, because I don't think men can do what women can do necessarily, and I don't think women can do what men do necessarily.

Ealdur Tinuviel stepped out onto the black slopes of Shayol Ghul, and the gateway, a hole on reality’s fabric, winked out of existence. Above, roiling gray clouds hid the sky, an inverted sea of sluggish ashen waves crashing around the mountain’s hidden peak. Below, odd lights flashed across the barren valley, washed-out blues and reds, failing to dispel the dusty murk that shrouded their source. Lightning flashed up at the clouds, ephemeral as it was, for such was the case in the World of Dreams. Across the slope steam and smoke rose from scattered vents, some holes as small as a man’s hand and some large enough to swallow ten men. Despite the steam it was bitter cold now, though he did not allow himself to feel it. Feathery mist marked his breath, barely visible before the air drank it in. Inky rivulets of pitch oozed down the rocky slope of the mountain.

The bulk of the trolloc army was farther south, beyond the valley of Thakan’dar, but it was here that the real battle would be fought, here where prophecy had foretold the Dragon’s blood would stain the black rocks of Shayol Ghul. Ealdur looked to the men on either side of him. The Dragon had selected his best asha’man for this task. Al’Thor himself led one circle, while Logain Ablar led the next. And Ealdur had been chosen to lead the last link, both because of his strength in all five of the powers, and the dexterity with which he wove. He supposed Semirhage herself could not be as dextrous in her use of the power. Each of the circles were composed of thirty-five men, and thirty-seven women, making them the maximum possible number and strength. Logain, Ealdur, and the Lord Dragon each held a sa’angreal to amplify the amount of power the circle could hold; for al’Thor, it was the male choedan kal, while Logain held Callandor; and Ealdur held a white-fluted wand sa’angreal, the only sa'angreal remaining in the cache of Tar Valon.

Ealdur seized saidin, and immediately felt his senses heightened. It felt like freezing blaze and molten icestorm all at once. The other men and women embraced the source as well, and he felt the link's reins pass to him. He had been told of the striking difference between saidin and saidar, especially in how they are handled, but he was still reluctant to surrender himself to saidar. It was difficult to juggle the two opposing sides of the Source at once, but it was necessary for the task at hand. With any luck, they would have the upper hand in the battle to come. Rand had betted on the Forsaken fighting alone, refusing to link with each other, still afraid of being betrayed even in the midst of the Battle to end all battles. As long as they were still untrusting of one another, the forces of light could take overwhelm them easily.

Each of the channelers knew the plan of action. They awaited only the Lord Dragon’s command to beging. He gave the word, and silvery slashes appeared in the air, rotating outward to form a gateway out of Tel’Aran’Rhiod and into the real Shayol Ghul. And so it begins. The trolloc hordes were taken by surprise. Many suffered wounds from the gateway's razor thin edge. But they hadn't made a dent in the trolloc forces. As soon as one beast was cut down, another replaced it, and the dead or dying were trampled in the wake of the onslaught. The foul creatures swarmed around them, rushing forward with a feral gleam in their eyes.