For any Sword of Truth readers out there... [Archive]

Liffguard

2011-07-10, 05:57 AM

He is angry. He's angry at you. Because he knows you are reading his book wrong. The important thing to remember about Terry is that he hates fantasy. He loathes it. He doesn't write fantasy, you see, he writes stories "with important human themes." However, a lesser evolved mind might be mistaken into thinking that the stories are fantasy what with all the dragons and magic and what-not. Obviously they are mistaken. But Terry knows that you are one such person and that you read his book because you thought it was fantasy. Thus he is angry at you for polluting the existence of his intellectual masterpiece with your desire to see a wizard wreck up some bad guys.

For shame. Bask in Terry's disapproval that you might one day see the light!

Iskandar

2011-07-10, 07:23 AM

Sword of Truth.... that series has achieved something rare for me... a series that I just gave up on. I tried, I really tried, but, yeah, about the sixth book I realized I was reading it just to get through it, not because I was having any fun anymore, and I stopped. Too much Author Tract, not enough fantasy story goodness, too much convoluted plots, just too much.

Plus it really got to the point of "What new, horrible thing can I inflict on the main characters this book" To a degree, I admire an author who can make evil characters, well, evil. But good grief, did Goodkind kinda go over the top sometimes.

Liffguard

2011-07-10, 07:50 AM

Plus it really got to the point of "What new, horrible thing can I inflict on the main characters this book" To a degree, I admire an author who can make evil characters, well, evil. But good grief, did Goodkind kinda go over the top sometimes.

For me it was less "What new, horrible thing can I inflict on the main characters in this book" and more "What new, horrible thing can the main characters inflict upon the villains whilst still maintaining the dubious fiction that they are heroes." Goodkind subscribes to the "anything done by a person I define as good is by definition a good act even if that act would be monstrously evil by the standards of anyone else" school of thought.

Tyndmyr

2011-07-10, 08:06 AM

The books were also a little...rapey. SURE, I get it, bad people do bad things...but by the end of the series I was just hoping for a book without rape or almost-rape in it. Combined with the political philosophizing that got quite repetitive, I feel goodkind mainly demonstrates how easy it is to still be a successful fantasy author.

Some of the books are still decent, in spite of his best efforts for them not to be.

Eldonauran

2011-07-11, 10:16 AM

While not my favorite author, Terry Goodkind kept me entertained for hours on end. He is one of the few authors that managed to piss me off fairly regularly with some things in his books, but it made it all the more worth-while to finish them.

The Sword of Truth novels were one of these. At times, I would get highly irrate about what was going on and couldn't understand why the character wouldn't just snap and take everyone else down with him. I am glad I stuck with it in the end, it all wrapped up nicely, in my opinion.

H Birchgrove

2011-07-11, 10:31 AM

I wish "they" had continued with the TV-series. :smallfrown:

GenericFighter

2011-07-11, 12:17 PM

The first time I saw his author bio I laughed SO HARD. I imagine at the end of the actual sentence is the unspoken statement to the effect of "Try and find me, Federales!"

Giggling Ghast

2011-07-11, 01:16 PM

He looks angry because people keep calling his work fantasy. Dammit, they're not fantasy, they're stories with important human themes!

Winter_Wolf

2011-07-11, 01:30 PM

I stopped following after the Pillars of Creation . Is that right? I don't remember the whole title. It stopped being fun.

One thing I noticed from the earlier photos and the later ones (maybe I got earlier print editions?) is that he looks decidedly more muscular in his later books, and decidedly more pissed off at the world. Maybe it's just the clothing, but he looks more buffed in later pics. An uncharitable person might attribute it to steroid abuse.

Or maybe he just hates his readers and thinks he's greater than he really is. Oh, sure he's published, and I enjoyed several of his books, but his later books just seem like he's getting lazy or crazy or something.

Lamech

2011-07-11, 03:59 PM

Pretty sure he went crazy in the later books. Its really funny when the characters start going off about atheism is good and hoping for the afterlife is silly. Now nothing wrong with that in and of itself*, but when you remember the other books. The ones where the characters go to the afterlife? The ones where they learn "good" guys became good spirits, and the bad ones join evil and such? And they learn that there most definitely an afterlife with good spirits that work against the bad ones? And that being a Creator vaguely underlined a lot of the magic systems in earlier books? And there is in fact a big bad Keeper?

A little bit silly to be claiming "no one ever comes back to tell us about the afterlife" when you sort of have...

Also I think in the later books he noticed that the "bad guys" basic philosophical system was "magic suppresses innovations of the mind", and in his world... 3000 years of stagnation in the tech department? And that anyone can learn magic, but wizards normally hoard it? He had to make it focus on being stupider.

*Okay nothing wrong other than having an author tract but still.

Keld Denar

2011-07-11, 04:23 PM

I liked Stone of Tears (particularly after Richard was captured by the Sisters and was rocking their boat) and Faith of the Fallen (again, when Richard was captured and...rocking...their...boat). I dunno. Richard's enduring optimism that good and life will triumph through the application of reason and logic has pretty much been a source of inspiration for me throughout my life. I read Wizards First Rule back in...2000? Yea, cause I read Stone of Tears while I was an exchange student in Germany, which was '00-'01. There are some repetative themes, and a bit of rather heavy political slanting, but I really REALLY enjoyed and empathized with the character of Richard. Yea, I wish he and Kahlan got to spend more than 20 minutes together throughout the last...6? books, but I found his determination and focus, and the fact that his reasoning was always multi-tiered, rather than linear to be very inspiring.

Also, Cara. Cara was a badass. Every scene with Cara was epic, especially ones with her explorations into her feminine side and foreign things like politeness and relationships. The part in the Wizard's Keep where she's wearing, was it a pink nightgown? was priceless.

And I don't think it was any more rapey than GRRM, and I haven't even read those books, just seen the HBO series which I understand is WAY toned down on the rape factor. I wish HBO had done the Seeker books instead of whatever hack they got to do the network version. Seriously, the guy who played Richard in the TV show was a total pansy...

Liffguard

2011-07-11, 04:29 PM

I dunno. Richard's enduring optimism that good and life will triumph through the application of reason and logic has pretty much been a source of inspiration for me throughout my life.

I originally checked out Sword of Truth for more or less the same reasons. I liked the idea of an Enlightenment-inspired fantasy as opposed to the usual Romanticism-inspired. Ultimately, I couldn't get past the fact that at the very least, Richard and Kahlan are bat**** crazy psychopaths ultimately no better than the people they fight against. And don't get me wrong, that could have made for an awesome story. "He who fights monsters..." can be really compelling drama and make for some fantastic tragic villains. Unfortunately, the author goes out of his way to paint the main characters as absolutely right and justified. The books had lots of other problems besides just that, but that was the deal-breaker.

Eldonauran

2011-07-11, 04:45 PM

Also, Cara. Cara was a badass. Every scene with Cara was epic, especially ones with her explorations into her feminine side and foreign things like politeness and relationships. The part in the Wizard's Keep where she's wearing, was it a pink nightgown? was priceless.

Ahhh... :smallbiggrin:

Thanks for the flashback. THAT was great. I loved Cara too. :smallamused:

Nibleswick

2011-07-11, 05:17 PM

Terry Goodkind I think is kinda like the Mookie of the Fantasy Novel World. Only the snarking isn't as fun.

Forum Explorer

2011-07-11, 09:17 PM

Tono

2011-07-11, 10:08 PM

I really enjoyed the first book, and the second to last book. The others either bored or annoyed me. That being said, I did actually finish with them and keep up with them when they were coming out.

Partysan

2011-07-12, 05:35 AM

Well, I read all of them and I enjoyed parts of it. Cara is a good example of a good character that actually gets development. I also like convoluted plots to a degree, and in the early books Richard was a somewhat witty person. (I actually wish they had made the series closer to the book and gotten a better actor for Richard. The one the had was good for some eye candy when running around shirtless, but he had such a babyface and they also presented his character a lot more clueless and whiny than in the books.)

That said, Goodkind thows more strawman politicals at you in one book than a rightwing nutjob in a whole election campaign. Those of the points I didn't agree with he presented terribad and those I did agree with I wished he hadn't tried to present because it was terribad as well.

warty goblin

2011-07-12, 09:42 AM

I got to chainfire before I gave up. I read it, screamed in anger that the story was still going and never touched one of his books again. I stopped enjoying the books in any way around pillars of creation and was just reading for hopes of an ending. When chainfire came out I heard that it was the last book. When this proved to be false well see above.

Yeah, Chainfire's where I gave up the ghost as well. Don't get me wrong deleting Kahlen from esistance was an entirely good thing in my book.

Only problem was that left us with 24/7 Richard and the nagging questions why somebody didn't delete him as well.

Velaryon

2011-07-12, 03:16 PM

And I don't think it was any more rapey than GRRM, and I haven't even read those books, just seen the HBO series which I understand is WAY toned down on the rape factor. I wish HBO had done the Seeker books instead of whatever hack they got to do the network version. Seriously, the guy who played Richard in the TV show was a total pansy...

Maybe Terry Goodkind was able to see the future, and knew what a mess the TV show was going to make of his books. Maybe THAT's why he looks like he wants to jump off the back cover of his books and choke someone.

Anyway, I wasn't looking for this to become a discussion of the books themselves, but since it has, I'll join in. The series, for me, ends after Faith of the Fallen. Pillars of Creation and especially Naked Empire are some of the worst fantasy I've ever read (right up there with the Elric saga). In the first four books, the preachiness isn't too bad, and I didn't feel like Goodkind was beating me over the head with his horribly skewed political and moral ideas.

The fifth book was not very good, but was a necessary evil to reach the sixth book, which was a great high point and a good stopping place for the series. The whole political rants really came out of left field for me, but the overall strength of the story allowed me to put up with that. But after book 6, it's all downhill. Chainfire and whatever the two books after it were called sort of picked up the pieces of the 7th and 8th books, but they definitely couldn't salvage everything.

My single biggest problem with the series (other than the aforementioned preaching disguised as a story) has to be that Richard is NEVER wrong. People argue with and disagree with him all the time, and guess what? Richard is right. Every. Single. Time. Really starts to get old fast.

I'm also not a big fan of how every single adult female character seemed to be either:
-a blood relative of Richard
-old enough to be Richard's grandmother (at least)
-gay, or
-absolutely in love with Richard.

Having a main love interest is fine. Having one more woman to make a love triangle is cliche and overdone, but still acceptable. Having four, five, maybe more women all throwing themselves at him? Way too much.

I see the term Mary Sue and its male equivalent thrown around a lot, many times in cases I consider inappropriate. For one thing, it seems to me the term is supposed to apply to fan fiction or perhaps shared-universe stories, rather than original fiction. I do not agree, for example, with those who label Daenerys Targaryen and/or Jon Snow as Mary Sue/Gary Stu in A Song of Ice and Fire. But if ever there was a case where the main protagonist of a series could be called a Gary Stu, it's definitely Richard Rahl. If we are to believe Terry Goodkind, Richard is perfection in human form.

Eldonauran

2011-07-12, 05:18 PM

My single biggest problem with the series (other than the aforementioned preaching disguised as a story) has to be that Richard is NEVER wrong. People argue with and disagree with him all the time, and guess what? Richard is right. Every. Single. Time. Really starts to get old fast.

I kind of liked that Richard was right all the time. While I am all for allowing everyone to believe what they want and never have to be discriminated against because of it, I do believe that if there is truth out there, there is one definate truth and all else is just a reflection of it, whether closely resembling it but fatally flawed in one aspect or such a dim negative that all it has of the original is the dark way it reflects the light.

I like absolutes, a lot. :smallamused:

warty goblin

2011-07-12, 06:50 PM

Weezer

2011-07-12, 07:10 PM

Anyway, I wasn't looking for this to become a discussion of the books themselves, but since it has, I'll join in. The series, for me, ends after Faith of the Fallen. Pillars of Creation and especially Naked Empire are some of the worst fantasy I've ever read (right up there with the Elric saga). In the first four books, the preachiness isn't too bad, and I didn't feel like Goodkind was beating me over the head with his horribly skewed political and moral ideas.

You didn't like the Elric saga? :smallfrown:
It's such a classic, a bit pulpy, but good anyways.

Eldonauran

2011-07-12, 07:45 PM

Ignoring for a moment the dodgy proposition that universal truth involves killing everyone who thinks differently, and the use of a cheap rhetorical trick instead of true reasoned dialog, it kills any sense of conflict because the outcome is completely transparent from the outset. A well written debate has tension, some degree of back and forth as both sides put forwards well constructed arguments, and actually resembles intelligent people having a conversation. Debates in the Sword of Truth have none of those things.

This I can understand, A good debate is a very good read. I guess my entire read-through of the series was colored by the ending of the series, where killing everyone that disagreed was an option Richard did not choose.

But, generally, if a disagreement is deep enough that no amount of debating is going to resolve it, humanity has a tendancy to get physical. The term 'over my dead body' is usually the only way to resolve such a conflict for sure. Not that I advocate violence to solve an arguement. However, I freely admit to having a few choice beliefs/opinions that I would not concede even on threat of death. Free will is quite a thing, isn't it?

warty goblin

2011-07-12, 09:11 PM

This I can understand, A good debate is a very good read. I guess my entire read-through of the series was colored by the ending of the series, where killing everyone that disagreed was an option Richard did not choose.

We are nevertheless talking about the guy who happily slaughters his way through unarmed people holding a completely peaceful protest. Generally such people are termed terrorists, mass murderers, thugs and monsters for good reason. He also nearly died from expressing something even vaguely resembling remorse for all the people he hacks apart. He might not have killed everybody in the end, but he's not got a track record of compassion.

But, generally, if a disagreement is deep enough that no amount of debating is going to resolve it, humanity has a tendancy to get physical. The term 'over my dead body' is usually the only way to resolve such a conflict for sure. Not that I advocate violence to solve an arguement. However, I freely admit to having a few choice beliefs/opinions that I would not concede even on threat of death. Free will is quite a thing, isn't it?
There's a difference between being willing to die for something, and being willing to kill for it. One can also kill in self defense or for an ideal and still express remorse that it was in your view necessary. Richard doesn't even do that, in fact he nearly wallows in killing.

Blaze

2011-07-12, 10:45 PM

I'm totally on the same page as everyone else... quit at Chainfire.

So boring. Repetitive whining by Richard just made me angry. The fact he had to go through every little story again and have long dialogue sessions about it and wahh wahhh wahhh. All I got from that book was whining. I read almost half of that book... picked it up on 3 different occasions and I just couldn't deal with it.

To be honest, the books all have a decent amount of repetition we could all skip Chainfire and not skip a beat... I'm sure Richard figures out he was just mental at the end of the book, right? :P

Eldonauran

2011-07-13, 05:16 PM

We are nevertheless talking about the guy who happily slaughters his way through unarmed people holding a completely peaceful protest. Generally such people are termed terrorists, mass murderers, thugs and monsters for good reason. He also nearly died from expressing something even vaguely resembling remorse for all the people he hacks apart. He might not have killed everybody in the end, but he's not got a track record of compassion.

Happily? I wouldn't say that. Richard doesn't like killing but is willing to do it because it needs to be done. Let's not forget that Richard was ALWAYS right. Most, if not all, of the people he killed were evil and advancing their own agenda in many ways. Others were being blinded and mislead, but were completely unwilling to listen to reason.

We can look back and say that we don't agree with his methods but one can not just argue with an ultimate authority figure that one can not stand against. You either obey or die. I AM NOT advocating this kind of method in real life AT ALL. But in this setting and how things worked, Richard was the one and only one, that had the ability (and right, :smallsigh:) to do what he did.

And from what I recall, Richard was constantly haunted by the memory of the people he had to kill, even to the point of almost giving up his quest, numerous times.

Liffguard

2011-07-13, 06:37 PM

Happily? I wouldn't say that. Richard doesn't like killing but is willing to do it because it needs to be done. Let's not forget that Richard was ALWAYS right. Most, if not all, of the people he killed were evil and advancing their own agenda in many ways. Others were being blinded and mislead, but were completely unwilling to listen to reason.

My objection is less about how happy Richard seems to be at merrily slaughtering his way through peaceful protestors and more about how happy Terry seems to be to go out of his way to set up contrived situations whereby Richard has to merrily slaughter his way through peaceful protestors. Terry specifically sets up his world to show his author mouthpiece protagonist to be "correct" even if he has to pull random nonsensical twists out of his arse to do it. And he seems to take a savage glee not only in setting up situations that "prove" his philosophy to be right, but in which his avatar gets to massacre all the people who happen to disagree with him. Frankly, it's a bit creepy.

Ozymandias

2011-07-13, 07:40 PM

Honestly, as offensive as the rest of the stuff in the books are, what really made me angry was how often the plots ended with "Richard uses magic to solve everything" deus ex machina. Which happened with alarming frequency.

Especially since the first book had him outwitting the bad guy (although the confession immunity was essentially cheating). Much better than it eventually got.

Velaryon

2011-07-13, 09:22 PM

I kind of liked that Richard was right all the time. While I am all for allowing everyone to believe what they want and never have to be discriminated against because of it, I do believe that if there is truth out there, there is one definate truth and all else is just a reflection of it, whether closely resembling it but fatally flawed in one aspect or such a dim negative that all it has of the original is the dark way it reflects the light.

I like absolutes, a lot. :smallamused:

The concept of absolute truth is not what I'm objecting to. In principle, I'm not even sure that I disagree with it. No, my issue stems from seeing the same thing played out time and time again. Richard has some sort of idea, which is refuted by Kahlan/Zedd/Verna/Ann/Warren/Nicci/Cara/Nathan/some combination of the above, and then Richard proceeds to prove to everybody that he was right all along, proving those who disagreed with him wrong in their supposed fields of expertise. Time and time again.

The one example I can think of in the few minutes before I have to leave is in Chainfire, when everyone else has forgotten Kahlan's existence, save for Richard. Everyone insists to him that he never knew the Mother Confessor Kahlan Amnell, was never in love with her, and so on. He spends the next three books proving that he was right and all his doubters were wrong. In this one case he was justified, but it's the exact same scenario that played out in the previous eight books. You'd think at some point that the other characters would learn to trust his judgment, but nooooooooo, that never seems to happen.

No, the only things I can think of that even remotely resemble a mistake on Richard's part throughout the entire 11-book series are:

1. His over-reliance on the Mriswith cloak and his near-failure to recognize what it was doing to him, and

2. Trusting the people of Anderith too far, resulting in Kahlan nearly being killed and Richard storming off in a hissy fit, leaving all his responsibilities behind.

You didn't like the Elric saga? :smallfrown:
It's such a classic, a bit pulpy, but good anyways.

At the risk of derailing my own topic:

I have to admit that I only read up through the third book. I couldn't force myself to keep going any longer than that. Elric was just a terrible character. He made decisions that had no sense, no logic whatsoever behind them. My cousin tried to usurp my authority, steal my girl, and have me killed? Then I'll just make him my regent while I'm off wandering instead of ruling my kingdom! Then I'll act shocked, shocked! when he tries to do the exact same thing to me again. And then when that's dealt with, I'll go wandering off AGAIN and have an adventure that doesn't relate to anything that's happened so far, still bemoaning how my people don't understand me and completely destroying everything in my path with my evil sword and demonic patron. What's not to like?

warty goblin

2011-07-13, 10:05 PM

Happily? I wouldn't say that. Richard doesn't like killing but is willing to do it because it needs to be done. Let's not forget that Richard was ALWAYS right.

If your first response to people staging a peaceful protest talking up a message you disagree with is to carve them limb from limb, you are very, very far from any sort of absolute truth.

Most, if not all, of the people he killed were evil and advancing their own agenda in many ways. Many people do advance their own agendas, that's hardly a crime. And while most of the people Richard kills are scum, it's not like he and his allies are anything resembling nice, honorable people either. The first book brought us the wonderful bit of logic that genocide is a proper course of action in a war, because otherwise you might have fight another one later, and that was before things went off the deep end.

Others were being blinded and mislead, but were completely unwilling to listen to reason.
Even if you buy into Richard's particularly warped view of the cosmos, he's really pretty bad at the whole reasoned debate thing; I've met college freshmen who could argue circles around him without serious difficulty. It's perfectly valid to reject a hypothesis if its presenter cannot supply a satisfactory argument in its favor. Even if later that hypothesis is demonstrated to be correct, at the time its rejection was logical and justified.

We can look back and say that we don't agree with his methods but one can not just argue with an ultimate authority figure that one can not stand against. You either obey or die. I AM NOT advocating this kind of method in real life AT ALL. But in this setting and how things worked, Richard was the one and only one, that had the ability (and right, :smallsigh:) to do what he did.
The thing is this sort of thing is exceedingly repellent to a lot of people, and has some very close and disturbing real world analogs. People (and I'm not saying you do since you've made it clear you don't) really do think that way in reality, which makes it hard to see as anything but thinly disguised ideological propaganda advancing some rather disgusting political philosophy.

Now if Goodkind said he was writing cheesy escapist fantasy I could mostly let it slide. Since he says he's writing about 'important human themes' he's pretty clearly aiming to be taken seriously however, that out doesn't really apply. In light of that I have no problem arguing against the ideas he puts forwards as if they are supposed to applied in at least some ways to reality, because that's fairly obviously the frame of reference in which they are put forwards.

And from what I recall, Richard was constantly haunted by the memory of the people he had to kill, even to the point of almost giving up his quest, numerous times.
And as I recall, his magic (aka the Force of Plot) nearly killed him because he wasn't eating meat in recognition of all the people he was killing. Apparently any expression of something bordering on remorse is so bad a person can die of it.

Velaryon

2011-07-14, 02:10 AM

It's been some time since I've read the books, but I don't remember this killing of peaceful protestors that people keep talking about. When was this and why was it done?

hamishspence

2011-07-14, 03:38 AM

Naked Empire- they were protecting soldiers of Jagang's empire.

The wording:

Men behind Richard hit the line of evil's guardians with unrestrained violence. People armed only with their hatred for moral clarity fell bloodied, terribly injured, and dead. The line of people collapsed before the merciless charge. Some of the people, screaming their contempt, used their fists to attack Richard's men. They were met with swift and deadly steel.
— Naked Empire.

Friv

2011-07-14, 07:56 AM

People armed only with their hatred for moral clarity fell bloodied, terribly injured, and dead.

I'd forgotten that line, and how amazingly bad it was. :smallbiggrin:

In all seriousness, I loved the first few books of the series. I thought that it was refreshing to have main characters that weren't traditional fantasy heroes, and situations that weren't black-and-white. You killed the evil villain? Great! You've been named heir to his empire and his crazy murder-assassins now want to serve you loyally. What next? Oh, the villain was forcing the population to worship him as a god? Surprise, that was the focus for a powerful magical effect, and you need to keep it up or you're going to be flattened.

Then, very gradually, I came to realize that the characters were not meant to be morally grey, and neither were the situations they were in. They were supposed to be Right. And that's where my enthusiasm started to rapidly wane.

I kept up to the end of Chainfire, out of sheer bloody-minded perseverance, but then the series finally beat me.

Lamech

2011-07-14, 09:26 AM

Then, very gradually, I came to realize that the characters were not meant to be morally grey, and neither were the situations they were in. They were supposed to be Right. And that's where my enthusiasm started to rapidly wane.

I kept up to the end of Chainfire, out of sheer bloody-minded perseverance, but then the series finally beat me.It may have been that the situations they were in at the start were supposed to be morally grey, it seemed to me that is was fairly obvious the authors morals shifted over the course of writing. Lead to things like the Flat Earth Atheism (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FlatEarthAtheist) of Richard and co.