Is Terry Goodkind any good?

LOL, YA doesn't bother me, I don't look deep in prose style and use, I just read for entertainment and story and characters. I am sure I have read books that were poorly written but had great stories and vice versa.
In answer to the title of the thread:

No. No he is not. Trite, derivative, misogynist, pathetic, hopelessly uber-conservative, and downright annoying.:mad: Last book of his I read, I chucked across the room. The plot is meandering, to say the least, and the characters are so wooden I could build a bookshelf from them. The lead man is the gary-stu-iest Gary Stu I've ever seen, and Goodkind would have done well writing villains for 1920's silent movie serials. He just needed to add in a part about Emperor Jagang twirling a mustache...I mean, the villains are so stuffed full of straw, Tiny Tim (of A Christmas Carol fame) could have knocked them down.

Embarrassingly, I kept reading the books until Naked Empire, thinking they would get better.:eek: They just got steadily worse, but they received incredible marketing support from TOR right out of the gate in the mid-1990s. This is the series that I point to when I think of all the good authors who don't get decent backing from publishers.

But, as I, Brian so brilliantly pointed out: try him and make up your own mind. Erikson, in my view, is much better, but I admittedly struggled through 5 books. He is rather dense in his plotting.
I found the Wizards First Rule to be very good. I read the first 2 Malazan books and thought to myself, why would I carry on with this series? It just doesnt work for me. A multitude of characters to keep track of and a confusing story without much explanation as to why certain things have happened the way they did. I prefer more traditional fantasy anyway.

I think it would help if you took notes as you read every few pages.

Yeah, the number of characters is quite high. To the point that there became too many to satisfactorily wrap up plotlines. Some ended up with pointless cameo appearances at the end.

But it's sad you stopped after Deadhouse Gates, because once past those two it was much smoother sailing. Especially since Memories of Ice came next. The third book was his best book. The main reason being as he had to write it twice because of a HD failure. (That's how we ended up with the sidestory, Deadhouse Gates - Memories of Ice was supposed to be the second book originally).

I wouldn't get too put off by the comments, Stephen. I worry that sometimes we can get too difficult with our expectations to the point that we ruin any possible enjoyment we can get out of stories by critiquing them instead of just enjoying them for what they are. You could do far worse than either of these authors. I think they are both worth reading.

Joe Abercrombie has been mentioned several times in this thread. I give him a +1 as well. One of the best authors out there atm.

In my experience, stories that start off badly typically don't get better, at least not dramatically so. This has been the case for me 99.5% of the time. If the book is the first in a trilogy then you can expect much of the same in the following books or worse.

Magician was the first fantasy book I ever read. Opened up the whole genre to me. Loved it.

Terry Brooks. Sword of Shannara was terrible, but the next book: Elfstones of Shannara was really good. I think the first trilogy is hit and miss. The second was okay. Voyage of the Jerle Shannara is where he actually started getting consistently good. But the books have a blatant YA Fantasy feel to them.

I just kind of stopped at page 70 of SOS and never went any further. I didn't hate what I was reading, but it simply wasn't interesting enough to keep reading. His Genesis of Shannara series is a whole other story, pardon the pun. Those are probably his best books.

Magician was quite good, but the magic just got way out of control in that story. Not to mention, I hate it when authors age a character to the point where they're literally a completely different person by the next book, and it's usually never for the better either.
Moggle - I stopped taking notes when I left school :D, I just want to be entertained and I am cool with a bit of cognitive interaction with the story but not to the level where I have to mind map the story out just to keep up with it. I admit to liking A Game of Thrones way more than Erikssons 2 books I read but, alas I have spoiled readin the rest by letting the TV show overtake my reading plans for the rest of the series.
Oh, A Game of Thrones is way better than Gardens of the Moon. No contest there. And the same goes for the entire series. MoI is the only one that stood a chance against GRRM.

As far as spoiling the books goes, catch up over the Christmas break and you should be good. There is much to the books that was cut out of the shows, namely background about certain characters that paints an entire different picture on the situation than what is portrayed in the TV show. It wasn't really 'changed' that much, just not included. I expect there is going to be many surprised viewers by the end of the show. The TV show can't have spoiled the most critical parts for you - with the exception of two character's demises - as long as you read the first three books before the next season screens - unless of course you looked up details about the story that you shouldn't have. :)

Although there is a certain truth to finding it hard to read a book that you already know the story for, even if it allows you to fill in a lot of blanks the TV show left unanswered. Of course, by reading the third book, you will be spoiling the third season of the show instead. So take your pick which one you'd rather spoil.
Last edited:
Warren Paul - I was about 40% into ACOK and wasn't sure if I should stop reading it and go onto the 3rd book, that's why I stopped. Luckily I haven't read any spoilers on wiki or forums etc.

Similar threads