Goodkind

[Sammie]

I dunno.....i did used to have a tutor named Getgood.....

 

[Lani]

Well, Weis and Hickman did a lot whole of books in Drangonlance world too, so I wouldn't say they are that opposite...

 

[Eventine]

They at least went to the effort of writing the reasonably original Deathgate world as well though.

 

[Saria]

Okay some of the things that you guys say makes me think that before you even read the books you think they are going to be bad so you automatically have an aversion to them! You are no longer looking at teh beauty of teh characters and their development! Nicci is one of the best characters from any series ever! She is the creation of a small religious group whose beliefs are similar to that of todays! As for Kahlan... I dont' think she is a very believable character but.... what are ya gonna do I suppose! You can't win them all! ZEDD IS A BADASS!!!
Just thought I'd say!

 

[estranghero]

Not really Sar.

I first started out Wizard's First Rule expecting wonder and enjoyment based on the cover alone (fantastic piece, actually). However, as I went on, my enjoyment level dropped rapidly as I read the book such that when I finished it, I was so traumatised I swore never to touch another book in that series again.

Later on, I read Goodkind's "Debt of Bones" short story in the Legends anthology and it wasn't so bad, actually, having enjoyed a different look at Zedd. But am still not touching the series ever because I don't think I could have stood it.

 

[allanon]

Creating new world is better.
However, I prefer Goodkind to Hobb

 

[Shanoncia]

Easy Caldazar, I didn’t direct my analysis towards you, only towards the majority of posts frequently placed by members, which you must admit are a dominating abundance of ill criticism.
Perhaps my ignorance of latter novels has much to do with my present conception of Goodkind, but I still feel the need to defend him in some respects from the plagiaristic accusations flowing incessantly from Jordan fans (at least from the first two novels I see none apparent). Much of writing today (especially in fantasy where it has almost become a formula where you find the wizard and make a grand quest with some evil constantly nipping at your heels) is about innovation. The innovative similarities transcending from these two authors is minuscule at most, and both have drawn heavily from previous writers, and when you have two writers drawing from the same formulas it will create a similar story in its base, but as far as the innovative elements being similar... *looks aroud* where?
As a final note, the constant reiteration of information is to allow newcomers to jump right into the tale without having to read ten books, when you have a series that has run for such a long period you need to do this as tedious as it may seem.

Ello Hemmingway. Since a not very nice Goodkind-hater closed the thread you posted this on, I though I'd respond to your post here.

First off, I'm not sure why but I want to say thanks. Your post was a breath of fresh air.

It frustrates me to constantly have to read all the ricidiculous jabs people take at Goodkind. They are almost laughable in content. I've never understood why people think they need to do that.

Also, I wanted to let you know that you have restored a faith in me that the entire world has not gone insane. Your posts are always very intelligently written, and well informed so it pleases me mightily to see you defend Goodkind.

Have a GREAT day!

 

[ChrisW]

heh you do know that Hemingway was banned for being the opposite of what you just said he was.

That or Fitz just wanted to ban a Goodkind fan .

 

[snake0024]

heh you do know that Hemingway was banned for being the opposite of what you just said he was

That or Fitz just wanted to ban a Goodkind fan

roflmao

 

[Shanoncia]

Originally posted by Caldazar
heh you do know that Hemingway was banned for being the opposite of what you just said he was.

That or Fitz just wanted to ban a Goodkind fan .

Yea, I knew he was banned but I figured he still browsed around, not logged in, and I hoped that he would read it.

Besides, I really did like his post, I couldn't help myself!!!

 

[Voland]

Goodkind doesn't write fantasy, he's, according to himself, in a genre all by himself. In fact he holds most of the fantasy genre in contempt. He writes to get his poorly hidden political and philosophical beliefs across and proceeds to bash you over the head with them. Faith of the Fallen anyone?



Just to clarify...I used to like him up to and including Soul of the Fire when I was younger. Then FotF came along and ruined that. Now, I have yet to read or reread him after that, but I plan to reread WFR to get a current picture of his writing.
But then again, I used to like all sorts of shoddy writers. Tried rereading one of my favorite authors from my early teens Eddings (started fantasy with the Belgariad). Read the Tamuli, and was amazed how bad he/they write/s. So I try not to judge authors by what I read 5-10 years ago. Now that, imo, Martin & Erikson has revitalized the genre I'm not satisified with the run of the mill crap that is getting churned out today.

edited for stupidity

 

[Shanoncia]

Why does it matter what genre anything is? I don't even bother to look at that unless I'm in a bookstore and need to find something.

I'm satisified with the run of the mill crap that is getting churned out today.

Well then, I'll have to remember not to take your recommendations for books to read...

 

[Voland]

hehe


Good catch Shanoncia

 

[Hobbit]

Why does it matter what genre anything is?

Hopefully this doesn't take things off topic too far.

IMO it doesn't - a 'good read' is a 'good read'.

However there are those who need to pigeonhole and characterise writing - Publishers, readers, writers, looking for a point of common reference to simply describe their work.

It is sometimes easier to use such terms as areas of common meaning, but there are times when the genre terminology is used against the 'stuff' that we like round here.

There was quite a debate over the terms Sf/Fantasy/Horror/ Speculative fiction a while back at the Forum. Look it up in the Archives or do a search if you're interested. What most people found (if I remember right) was that they were simple terms used because most people knew what was generally meant by them.

Some writers go to great pains to ensure that their work is not labelled as 'XX', not because they disagree with the label or the genrealisation of work, but because those who read such work are a bunch of weirdos who do not deserve to be associated with their writing. Not only that, but saying that a piece of work is 'XX' limits sales.

Then there are those pieces of work that are written, not because the writer has something particular to say, but because it fits the formula, and that the writer can become 'famous' or 'rich' out of writing about it.

Publishers are also often guilty of this one... I need another book like XX.... which ends up copying cliches without understanding or saying anything new. (A copy of a copy of Tolkien for example). Instead of bringing a fresh view a new style a different perspective, instead each time the style, the view, the vision, if you like, is diluted and possibly damaged, giving those who wish to deride 'better' work plenty of ammunition to use. This is what Voland was getting at, I think!

Minor point, but one which has sadly come up before.

Hobbit

 

[Shanoncia]

Hmm.. okay, I see what your saying Hobbit. Good points.

 

[BenIII]

As this topic is now 4 pages long, I suppose my post would no longer be considered relevant. I'll post anyway, though.

No, I don't particularly care for Goodkind. WFR is one of the most unoriginal books I've ever read, with droid-like characters and a cheesy ending to match.

Things picked up with Stone of Tears, however. Though the story was a bit Jordan-esque, it was actually kind of interesting. Richard also seemed to have attained some personality.

BotF was also a pretty good book. The self-righteous Hogan Bight(or whatever his name was) proved to be a very interesting character. I did believe, though, that the Palace of the Prophet's destruction and the subsequent exodus of the Sisters was very poorly-executed.

TotW was decent. Drefan was interesting, and the entire plot for once seemd somewhat original.

Soul of the Fire is probably the only book of the SoT series that I actually liked. The political intrigue was interesting and detailed. Also, the characters were realistic and understandable. I felt for Fitch and Beata.

The last three, though, are mostly garbage. FotF, while not as bad as some say, is pretty bad. Though I agree with much of Goodkind's philosophy, political dogma isn't exactly something I'm lookng for in a fantasy series. PoC, while it at least granted us a reprieve from Richard and Kahlan, was horrible. The plot was incredibly boring, though Jennsen was a good character.

Naked Empire, though, was bad to the extent that I could barely finish it. The plot was absolutely unbearable. First, Richard is captured and forced to free a people who won't fight for themselves. Of course, a few cheesy speeches from Richard overcome 3,000 years of indoctrination. Richard then raises an army of a bunch of untrained pacifists and defeats the IO, despite the fact that the IO troops are well-trained and numerous.Of course, what would a SoT novel be without the risk of Kahlan being raped? We are then treated to the usual SoT happily-ever-after ending.

Forgive any typos or gramatical errors, as I'm typing this at 2:30 in the morning(what kind of loser is on the internet at 2:30 in the morning?).

 

[Eventine]

Interesting take their Ben.
I personally thought SotF was the worst of all the books, and was the last one I read.
Here's an extract of a post I previously made about it:

Meaningless, boring characters in Fitch and Beata.
An extremely abrupt ending that wasn't explained very well at all.
Too much stuff clicking into place just enough to be fortunate for the main characters.
And finally, the whole seperated lovers thing has gone on too long. It seems Goodkind can't think of any storylines with these two together, so he keeps thinking of ways to keep them apart. Same with Zedd - we know that if Richard hung around with Zedd, he might actually learn something instead of stumbling his way through things and having his wizardly ways make everything turn out right. Goodkind must be terrified of writing a story where he actually has to think of having a plot resolution instead of having the answer's all appear through Richards magic.

 

[Shanoncia]

The strange thing about Goodkind is that he seems to have those who love him with a true passion, or those who hate him and would kill him if they could. Why doesn't this man have any inbetweeners?

 

[BenIII]

Shannocia - You might call me an "in-betweener". I'm certainly not a rabid fan of SoT, but I do think that it is classier than a lot of the stuff out there(Though I don't think it's nearly as good as some people seem to think it is). I guess I'd be an in-betweener who leans towards hating the series.

Edited twice so I could re-phrase my position.

Meaningless, boring characters in Fitch and Beata.
An extremely abrupt ending that wasn't explained very well at all.
Too much stuff clicking into place just enough to be fortunate for the main characters.
And finally, the whole seperated lovers thing has gone on too long. It seems Goodkind can't think of any storylines with these two together, so he keeps thinking of ways to keep them apart. Same with Zedd - we know that if Richard hung around with Zedd, he might actually learn something instead of stumbling his way through things and having his wizardly ways make everything turn out right. Goodkind must be terrified of writing a story where he actually has to think of having a plot resolution instead of having the answer's all appear through Richards magic.

I agree with you on some of these things. But yes, I too am tired of this whole Richard and Kahlan thing. It seems that in every book, Richard(or Kahlan) has to do some heroic and brilliant to save Kahlan(or Richard).

I liked Fitch and Beata a lot, though. They behaved like real people would in those situations. I was afraid that Fitch was going to become so morally perfect hero, but he didn't. He wasn't completely bad, nor was he completely good, but he did have good intentions at heart. But yeah, the way Richard just goes and solves the Chimes problem with his magic is absolutely horrible.

 

[Shanoncia]

I don't know, I kinda liked the way he solved it. It certainly wasn't predictable or overdone. And I like not always being able to know whats going on in Richards mind... you know... how he can surprise with his ideas.