Goodkind XV - Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here

[Mad Monkey]

Ok point taken... But I would state that hate filled characters are more fun to read about than characters who have no character. Unless of corse thats all there is about the characters than I see what you mean.

Oh, that's what most people would think, but then again most people have not read the book. The problem is that Richard has two emotions, Mindless Unstoppable Hatred & Anger and Smug Condescension, and a bizarre mixture of the two that proves to be as annoying as it is repetitive (and boy is it repetitive!) There's only so often that you can read about Richard smugly preaching on and on about how evil communism is before you long for the exciting sword-and-sorcery adventure that Paolini occasionally remembers to include his novels.

[Happy Ent]

Aren't communist products banned by Tairy fans?

You didn't read the ritual. You begin buy pouring said vodka into the toilet, thereby expressing your disdain for socialism, even it its most successful form.

It need not be stolen, either. (Even though that's a good idea.) Best thing would be to acquire it (by now, a rare product) at some kind of auction, for example eBay, where price is set by demand. Thereby your mode of acquisition in itself circumvents the basic principle of socialist economy.

[The Wolf Maid]

You didn't read the ritual. You begin buy pouring said vodka into the toilet, thereby expressing your disdain for socialism, even it its most successful form.

Oh. I'm sorry. I obviously still lack moral celery.

I shall rectify that now by reading A Debt of Bones again.

[Moosicus]

Oh. I'm sorry. I obviously still lack moral celery.

I shall rectify that now by reading A Debt of Bones again.

I believe that is the equivalent of self-flagellation. Pain is the cleanser!

[Mme Erzulie]

What are his strong points?

I'd like to add the obvious, moral clarity.

I remember this scene. Zedd and co. are slowly chased by this thing through the halls of the palace. Let me see if I remember this right, Watcher: OK Zedd orders everyone to walk away from this "screeling" because if they stand still it will kill them and if they run away it will kill them. So they only way to safely get away is to walk slowly away from it because the screeling will have one of those WTF? moments and won't be able to figure out why everyone isn't running away in terror from it.

So Zedd, Chase (and are there some other people as well? I can't remember) slowly walk away backwards (so they can keep an eye on the screeling while they leisurely flee) while the screeling slowly walks after them and kills random people in the palace who weren't as smart as First Wizard Zedd "Walk Slowly" Zorander.

The first time I read this scene I suspected that Terry had just seen Jurassic Park and had been very impressed with the T-rex's whole "vision based on movement" shtick. "I know!" exclaimed Terry. "What my stories need is a monster's who's vision is based on movement!" Pounds away furiously on the keyboard. Pauses. Hesitates. "Wait. That's too obvious. Creighton and Spielberg will see my yeard roast in hell if I copy it that blatantly." Thinks hards. A lightbulb appears above his head. "I know! I'll create a monster who's vision is based on slow movement! Brilliant!" Resumes typing.

The whole screeling sequence was slow, awkward, and ridiculous, much like a chase sequence on Murder She Wrote would be.

That is one of the funniest posts I've ever read. I can't believe that is a recapitulation of a scene from the actual books. It's so ridiculously much worse than anything in the parodies, even.

We should also make a pick-me-up of the Bloody Mary variety, called Moral Celery. It needs tomato juice, tabasco and the celery stick, but what kind of booze? It has been made with the different "normal" liquor types, except brandy, but is brandy staunch enough stuff? Maybe we could use Applejack (the liquor, not the drink), or Ratzeputz?

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

We should also make a pick-me-up of the Bloody Mary variety, called Moral Celery. It needs tomato juice, tabasco and the celery stick, but what kind of booze? It has been made with the different "normal" liquor types, except brandy, but is brandy staunch enough stuff? Maybe we could use Applejack (the liquor, not the drink), or Ratzeputz?

Tomato juice? Pah! It should be blood squeezed from the testicles of still living collectivists! It's like you haven't learned anything at all from these books.

[Moosicus]

Any drink should probably have two cherries with the stems tied together so it looks like a set of nuts hanging in there. The Harvey Jagangbanger.

[Lightsnake]

So, everything wrong with Objectivism! Who wants to point it out?

[AverageGuy]

So, everything wrong with Objectivism! Who wants to point it out?

Kind of hard to do. Naturally, any flaws we point out will be subjective.

[Brandon Sanderson]

What are Goodkind's good points?

Well, I'm going to take a chance here and voice a slight bit of dissention (and hope I don't get slammed for it too hard.) I think Terry is a good writer. I think Wizard's First Rule was, over all, a GOOD book. I wasn't fond of the torture chapter, and there were a few 'huh' moments, but it was an enjoyable read. It was a classic quest fantasy with swords, dragons, magic, and quick pacing.

Is it brilliant and earth-shattering? No. Is the writing up to that of, say, GRRM? Not in my opinion. Is it terrible? Again, not in my opinion. I actually thought WFR was one of the better fantasy debuts that year. However, I did not enjoy the second book, and stopped halfway through.

I have a lot of friends who are more casual fantasy readers than myself, and they really, really enjoy Terry's work. To discard his writing as crap is to insult all of those honest fantasy readers--people who may not have strong literary chops, but who enjoy a fun story. I can’t do that.

(I'm, admittedly, sensitive to this issue. While going through a graduate writing degree, I had to deal with a lot of prejudice against fantasy writing in general, and feel a bit unsettled when those of us within the genre start pointing fingers at each other.)

My argument against Terry, then, is not with his writing. It's with the interviews I've read that he has given, and the way he seems to treat people, including the very fans who have made him popular. By insulting the fantasy genre like he often does, he backhands a large segment of those people who enjoy and read his books for the fantasy elements. Beyond that, he is one of the MAIN people within fantasy who is pointing fingers at other writers and calling them crap. I don't like it when China does it, but at least he has the literary mastery to give himself something to stand on.

Goodkind is mainstream epic quest fantasy. There is nothing wrong with that. Yet, he can't be satisfied with that--he has to be so much more. He has to be the one who killed the fantasy genre. He has to be the most important writer of the latter half of the twentieth century. That bugs me. That is not an insult to those who enjoy his writing, but it bugs me so much that I simply can't read any more of his books. (That, and the fact that--as reported to me by some of his fans--his second book is one of the weakest in the series, and it's the one that lost me. I had real trouble empathizing with the characters.)

[pat5150]

Brandon,

Nice for you to drop in. Crap, if you thought the second volume was weak, it's a good thing you didn't read the rest! Faith of the Fallen, in particular. . . :sick:

Anyway, I don't want to give new life to that old debate, but I came across something some of you may find interesting. The French edition of the SoT is being heavily promoted and each book is wrapped with a ribbon that claims that Terry Goodkind sold 20 million books worldwide. . .

Patrick

[Lightsnake]

In all honesty, Brandon, I'd have to agree with you, but to a degree. However, there's a lot in Terry's writing that leaves a lot to be desired...gaps in continuity, utterly flat characters...he can't be content to tell a story. He has to hurl his pihloosphy in there and most of the times, it's done with pure strawmen and in a totally vile manner. His flat prose, his hypocritical usage of magic at every juncture...

Seriously, I honestly don't know why he's so popular. His books are subpar at the best of times, IMO of course, but so much is patently ridiculous, with mysogny, deus ex machinas and flat characters.

But I could forgive so much of this if not for the man himself. Terry is honestly, and I can't mince words here, a complete and utter dick to anyone and everyone.

One thing, Brandon...what do you mean 'When China does it?' I'm sure you mean Mieville, but I'm not so knowledgable on the subject there.

Brandon, I don't think you need to feel guilty about 'pointing fingers' in the genre...I think the genre would be better served if more people were willing to put people like Terry in their place. That man is harming the genre and so few authors throw his crap back in his face. At their hearts, Terry's stories have the makings of good fantasy romp, but he can't be content with that. He HAS to do something more important, his characters HAVE to be consistently perfect, he HAS to kill the fantasy genre, he HAS to hurl his philosophy in every area and insult us who don't like it.

Brandon, more than anything, I'd like people to enjoy qualitny fantasy. The Lord of the Rings, A Song of Ice and Fire, Malazan Book of the Fallen, Elantris, The Gentleman Bastards Sequence, The prince of Nothing and many more, but I don't believe Terry has any respect for the rest of you guys trying to create good fantasy stories. You're 'hackneyed Tolkien clones' he seems ashamed to be associated with-and he is only because of his cover art...after all, none of you write about 'real human themes', you're all about 'weird cultural diversity.' I can't respect the man. Because of the way he presents things through his writing and the sheer pomposity? I can't respect it. Not at all.

I have read all of Terry's books and I could point out so many flaws that I think, if people really saw them and knew what Terry was like, they'd never read another SoT book. That if they read some truly great fantasy in conjunction, they'd recall Terry's books with a mild sort of loathing. I speak from experience: SoT was one of my early forays into this genre.

Believe me...read Faith of the Fallen and the Pillars of Creation and you'll understand why we dismiss his books are horrible.

[Brandon Sanderson]

In all honesty, Brandon, I'd have to agree with you, but to a degree. However, there's a lot in Terry's writing that leaves a lot to be desired...gaps in continuity, utterly flat characters...he can't be content to tell a story. He has to hurl his pihloosphy in there and most of the times, it's done with pure strawmen and in a totally vile manner. His flat prose, his hypocritical usage of magic at every juncture...

I can believe this. I've often found that when you intentionally try to put a political or moral message into a book, it detracts from the story itself. Even when Lewis did it, I'm afraid. (I enjoy his books, but I think Tolkien did a better job of providing a moral by NOT providing a moral, if that makes sense.)

One thing, Brandon...what do you mean 'When China does it?' I'm sure you mean Mieville, but I'm not so knowledgable on the subject there.

Yup. China's nicer about it, but he does have some very distinct feelings about what makes good fantasy and the type of fantasy that pulls the genre down. It makes me uncomfortable when people inside the genre use the same arguments against others in their genre that the literary writers use for the whole genre. (Sorry for the tongue twister there.)

Brandon, I don't think you need to feel guilty about 'pointing fingers' in the genre...I think the genre would be better served if more people were willing to put people like Terry in their place. That man is harming the genre and so few authors throw his crap back in his face. At their hearts, Terry's stories have the makings of good fantasy romp, but he can't be content with that. He HAS to do something more important, his characters HAVE to be consistently perfect, he HAS to kill the fantasy genre, he HAS to hurl his philosophy in every area and insult us who don't like it.

This is why--where Goodkind is concerned--I make an exception to my "Don't talk bad about other authors" rule. I think it's a matter of professional courtesy to be respectful to others in my profession, and even if I find flaw with some of their writing, I try not to mock them or insult their readers. In Terry's case, however, I feel that his attacks on the genre have given me the right--as part of that genre--to react against him personally.

[Mad Monkey]

To discard his writing as crap is to insult all of those honest fantasy readers--people who may not have strong literary chops, but who enjoy a fun story. I can’t do that.

That's always the tough part about criticizing media, isn't it? The delicate balance between criticizing something for being badly-written and criticizing an audience because they enjoy something that you don't. Critics everywhere have to face that issue at some point.

(I'm, admittedly, sensitive to this issue. While going through a graduate writing degree, I had to deal with a lot of prejudice against fantasy writing in general, and feel a bit unsettled when those of us within the genre start pointing fingers at each other.)

What's wrong with pointing fingers at each other? Not all authors are talented, and I have to argue that it does the genre more harm than good when honest critique and dissenting opinions are stifled just because no one wants to raise a fuss. I mean, what would have happened if people like Mark Twain had decided not to ever skewer other works? A lot of different ideas might have been lost forever, then, and that sounds a lot worse than coddling some writer's ego.

He has to hurl his pihloosphy in there and most of the times, it's done with pure strawmen and in a totally vile manner.

Yeah, I'm not sure that I can ever be comfortable with the level of latent racism and misogyny that I'm picking up from these books (especially the later ones), nor can I enjoy the parts of the books that are true to their heritage of sword-and-sorcery fluff when everything around them has been a thinly-veiled discourse on some strange, bizarre ideology that just gets more terrifying the more often Terry uses it.

[Nathan Stinson]

What are his strong points?

rape, violence

[Lightsnake]

I can believe this. I've often found that when you intentionally try to put a political or moral message into a book, it detracts from the story itself. Even when Lewis did it, I'm afraid. (I enjoy his books, but I think Tolkien did a better job of providing a moral by NOT providing a moral, if that makes sense.)

You get exactly what I mean. whatever message Tolkien had took a firm backseat to the story. I never felt I was being preached to as SoT does, or to a lesser extent the Inheritance trilogy

Yup. China's nicer about it, but he does have some very distinct feelings about what makes good fantasy and the type of fantasy that pulls the genre down. It makes me uncomfortable when people inside the genre use the same arguments against others in their genre that the literary writers use for the whole genre. (Sorry for the tongue twister there.)

Well, I see where you're coming from. I'd have to say I disagree with Mieville's thoughts on Tolkien-personally, I feel he's so caught up in political philosophy and metaphor, he sees it everywhere in writing- but he gives credit where credit is due at least.

This is why--where Goodkind is concerned--I make an exception to my "Don't talk bad about other authors" rule. I think it's a matter of professional courtesy to be respectful to others in my profession, and even if I find flaw with some of their writing, I try not to mock them or insult their readers. In Terry's case, however, I feel that his attacks on the genre have given me the right--as part of that genre--to react against him personally.

I see what you mean. I can see you being professional and courteous to, say...Bakker or Lynch, men who clearly love the genre and try to do fun, interesting things within it. When I think of Bakker, I think of the intelligent guy who answers criticisms and pwns noobs, and with Scott, I see the fun guy who loves to talk about fantasy. With Terry? I see a pompous, elitist ass whoputs down everything in the genre and can't stand it being above him. I don't like to insult readerships but if it comes to it, I've noticed Terry's hardcore fans aren't what you'd call nice, well adjusted people (see: Mystar) and I'd say, as a fan of this genre, you have every single right to take the fight back to Terry. Honestly, I wouldn't mind other writers being more vocal on the matter and do their best to salvage the genre Terry's trying to destroy.

[Brandon Sanderson]

What's wrong with pointing fingers at each other? Not all authors are talented, and I have to argue that it does the genre more harm than good when honest critique and dissenting opinions are stifled just because no one wants to raise a fuss. I mean, what would have happened if people like Mark Twain had decided not to ever skewer other works? A lot of different ideas might have been lost forever, then, and that sounds a lot worse than coddling some writer's ego.

Mad Monkey,

You are right, of course. There is nothing wrong with offering critique of things within your own genre, or offering commentary on books that you think have major flaws. I think, perhaps, I need to refine what I said.

What bothers me is the out-of-hand dismissal that some within the genre make. The broad generalizations that imply other people’s opinions are worthless because they happen to be different from one’s own.

I'm talking about the things that Terry does in claiming all fantasy but his own is terrible. (Rowling, unfortunately, said something similar the other year.) I'm ALSO worried about those within the genre who write, or enjoy, more literary styles of writing pointing at the more popular-themed works and trying to 'kick them out' of the genre, so to speak. I worry that in struggling for legitimacy, we will alienate our own readers and cause our own downfall.

I, personally, see honest, important worth in a well-told story. There is as much value to me in a story that makes me empathize with characters I otherwise wouldn't understand as there is in a story with prose and themes that are groundbreaking and meaningful. One allows me to see through another’s eyes, and inspires my imagination with exciting stories and different places. Another challenges my understanding of the world and tickles my senses with description. Yet, the two sides have a TON of trouble getting along sometimes.

In other words, I have real problems with the commonly stated adage "Ninety percent of what is published is crap." I’ve found lots of fantasy readers who will quickly defend the genre by saying “Yes, I know that MOST of it is crap, but there are some good things, I promise!†I think this does us much more harm than good.

Most of what is published is not crap, in my opinion. I may not ENJOY most of what is published, but that doesn’t automatically make it crap. It was important enough to some editor to be published, important enough to some author to be written, and important enough to some reader to be purchased. I want to understand WHY they liked it, true, but I start to worry when someone’s opinions get dismissed because they happen to be part of the majority population.

But, then, this is getting wildly off-topic. I don't want to hijack the thread.

[Lightsnake]

Brandon, I'd rather we have real discussions, personally.

I have to ask what Rowling said, though

[Lightsnake]

I'll say this, though: compare and contrast the scenes of Richard fighting with, say....Conan from the REH stories. With Conan? I get the feeling that the fighting is tense. Conan takes wounds, gives as he gets and we get a raw, visceral feel as it goes. With Richard? Richard effortlessly tears through thirty blademasters at once without any problems....he achieves everything since he has magic.

It's a bit annoying

[Brandon Sanderson]

Brandon, I'd rather we have real discussions, personally.

I have to ask what Rowling said, though

Her interview in Time:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...83935-1,00.html

And a reply by the man who is, in my opinion, one of the genre's true geniuses, Terry Pratchett:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4732385.stm