Single-minded Terry Goodkind

Neon

Brighter than a lightbulb
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
298
Location
Raleigh, NC
I said:
Lol!! I completely forgot!!!

I may well have missed the Chinafire marketing window on this occasion - however, I'll make a point to chase this up in future, and try to raise some of the questions for him to answer, if he will.
Looks like you might have to wait until the next book for Mr. Goodkind to explain how wonderful he is ;)
 

anniekelleher

Member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21
Location
connecticut, usa
i read the swords of shannara books years ago and dismissed them as hopeless tolkien knock-offs of the worst kind... goodkind's popularity frankly escapes me. i don't just CHOOSE not to read his books; i CAN'T read his books, because i think he writes the WORST sort of fantasy... full of flat, silly, banal characters who never have a genuine thought, motivation or dream of their own... and moreover, he has no idea how to write a female character who sounds like anything but an adolescent boy zipped into a girl suit.


criticism is never easy to hear... but one thing i've learned is that even when i really don't like what a critic or reader says, i ALWAYS pay attention, and try to glean something useful to improve... some critics have even given me ideas as to how to make a current book better...
 

LadyFel

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2004
Messages
306
Location
Croatia
anniekelleher said:
i read the swords of shannara books years ago and dismissed them as hopeless tolkien knock-offs of the worst kind... goodkind's popularity frankly escapes me...

Sorry, wrong Terry...Shannara is by Terry Brooks :)

The rest of what you wrote applies to Goodkind though, so no harm done;)
 

Teresa Edgerton

Goblin Princess
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
15,085
Location
California
Very easy to get the two Terrys mixed up. Many have done so before, here and elsewhere.

Which is rather hard luck for Terry Brooks, who, whatever his sins as a writer, does not appear to be an egomaniac.
 

Earos

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
59
I tend to agree with Goodkind... People are stupid... A person can be intelligent, but a group of people... stupid at best.

That is the Wizard's First Rule...

I think he is a little harsh to people whose opinions differ from his, but he is human... He has faults... Regardless, he is a decent author and his books aren't half bad...
 

jenna

smiling politely
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
584
he's not human, he's a living god. it's true. just ask him...
 

Frey Slayer

Live Long and Hunt Freys
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Messages
78
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
jenna said:
he's not human, he's a living god. it's true. just ask him...

This is so funny. I picked up Wizards First Rule quite a while ago without knowing anything about Goodkind at the time.
I thought it was basic random variable fantasy genre.
By that I mean he took the basics you usually find in fantasy novels, shook them around and came up with something quote - unquote - original....but essentially derivative. He had a couple of novel concepts..I liked the society of torturers and the talking doll, but otherwise it was Danielle Steele of fantasy. The book passed the time but left no lasting impression on me.

Imagine my surprise when I learn about his ego and what he thinks of his own work. Man, get down off the high horse my friend!

Good derivation is just that....non-original and therefore worthy of little merit outside of its own incestous circle.
 

Earos

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
59
Frey Slayer said:
This is so funny. I picked up Wizards First Rule quite a while ago without knowing anything about Goodkind at the time.
I thought it was basic random variable fantasy genre.
By that I mean he took the basics you usually find in fantasy novels, shook them around and came up with something quote - unquote - original....but essentially derivative. He had a couple of novel concepts..I liked the society of torturers and the talking doll, but otherwise it was Danielle Steele of fantasy. The book passed the time but left no lasting impression on me.

Imagine my surprise when I learn about his ego and what he thinks of his own work. Man, get down off the high horse my friend!

Good derivation is just that....non-original and therefore worthy of little merit outside of its own incestous circle.

His books are decent reads... He is not on of my favorites, but I dont have anything against him... I very rarely pay attention to the authors... I am not really a fan of people... Why I agree with Goodkind's statements concernig the general pop... Does it mean I think I am any better? not at all... So who cares what an author sais when it's not in his books? He proves his point better then anything else could have...LOL

Oh and the danielle steele statement was just mean... Funny, but mean... LOL
 

Teresa Edgerton

Goblin Princess
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
15,085
Location
California
Goodkind considers all fantasy to be inferior. Which is why, he insists, that he neither reads nor writes the stuff.

It's hard for a confirmed fantasy lover like most of us here to love a guy like that.
 

braddockery

Magician Of Stew
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
15
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Hello Everyone. First post here. Lots of great topics for a Fantasy fan. I`ve noticed alot of times especially in modern fantasy novels the main characters in books are a reflection of how the author sees himself. The Sword Of Truth seires is the best example of this. I`ve read all of Thierry Goodkinds books and only do so because it`s a decent different type of fantasy series, but it is one of those books where you find yourself skipping paragraphs and skimming pages, especially when he starts preaching and ranting about some philosophical idea he wants to get across. Just check out the picture of him in the back of each book and you`ll get a very good idea of just how much he thinks he`s Richard Rahl!
 

Neon

Brighter than a lightbulb
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
298
Location
Raleigh, NC
LOL that's true .... it's possibly one of the most arrogant, self-obsessed photographs I've ever seen.
 

Brys

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
813
DarkHelmet said:
Yes, I'm forced to agree that Goodkind sounds like he has a screw loose, if you judge from the extract of an interview above. But, as Brian said I think it's better to read the entire interview before making any harsh statements.

Anyway, in my opinion an extract of an author interview shouldn't keep you from reading terific books, which I really enjoyed and still will enjoy, even if the author is a woolhead...

Well the rest of the interview (and every other interview) is even worse. I've also heard that his books range from the mediocre with Wizards First Rule to the awful with some of the later books. Fortunately, I haven't read any of them. He is ridiculously arrogant and pretentious - the only author I've seen who actually says that anyone who doesn't like his books are wrong, stupid etc. Anyway, we should just read these for comedy value - he may be being serious, but taking it seriously is pretty horrible to consider what he's saying. I doubt that Goodkind has actually read much fantasy - he probably looked at the covers and thought he didn't like it. How ironic is it that he writes extremely derivative fantasy, then complains about having a conventional fantasy character, yet he claims that he is completely different to all other fantasy writers. (He clearly hasn't read anything by Bakker, Cook, Donaldson, Erikson, Hobb, Lieber, Martin, Mieville, Moorcock, Peake, Wolfe or Zelazny - I probably missed a load out there, but it just helps to show how little he must know of the fantasy genre. If he has read them, then I think he must be having serious problems if he claims they don't have plot, theme or characterisation).
 

GOLLUM

Moderator
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
9,035
Location
Australia
Sadly (or otherwise... :rolleyes:) Book 1 Wizards' First Rule is one of the few books I just couldn't bring myself to finish.

YIKES this guy is fighteningly bad IMHO..... :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
 

LJonesy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
86
Goodkind is an A-Grade arrogant fool. like someone else said, i unfortunately had read the first 6 books before i found out what he was really like. i'm the sort of person who needs closure so i'm going to keep reading until the end, much as it irks me to do so.

the first thing that really annoys me that he's constantly bashing on fantasy. although he has toned that down a bit these days, the things that i've read in interviews are appalling. he goes on about how his publishers categorised his work as fantasy just because there was a red dragon appearing briefly at the end of Wizards First Rule. notice the title. Wizard. notice the main characters - strapping hero with magic sword, hot magic babe, old white haired mentor wizard, evil guy bent on ruling the world. good god, it's revolutionary! oh hold on, my mistake, that's text book fantasy if ever i saw it! that's what got me really disliking the guy. i can't stand people with god complexes... (for example the moderators on the Goodkind site's forum.. but that's a whole other discussion!!)

i had the displeasure of attending a Goodkind Objectivist Youth Rally... i mean, meet and greet. my biggest regret is that i was so close to him, i really should have just punched him in the face. would have made me feel infinitely better!! personally i think he made a fool of himself, but everyone else thought he was just awesome.
he actually said things like, "the thing about fantasy, although i don't read fantasy, is blah blah blah" and i'm like can he not even see how stupid that comment was? how can he think to comment on how all fantasy is crap when he's just admitted he doesn't even read it?

Oh my, this is why i joined these forums.

He sounds like the next L. Ron. Hubbard. "Goodkind Objectivist Youth Rally"? That's just... oh i can't put a word to that cringe-worthy feeling i get from that.

I've been reading interviews while i've been reading these threads, for validation, you know. And what everyone is saying about him being a pompus ass, is so true.

You guys have heard of the term self-deification? He puts himself above fantasy, and his philosophy? Oh no, you must speak about his philosophy with reverence *rolls eyes*.


he's not human, he's a living god. it's true. just ask him...

You couldn't be closer to the truth.

On a side note, i liked his book because it was quite different from other books. However Tolkein has never failed to pull me in and keep me interested, despite how much i hate his writing style he somehow tells a good story.

Ha! Good first post!
 

Calm Water

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
1
Oooo! Goody - a place to share!

I've read all of the SoT books, and I enjoyed them a lot until about book 6, when to my mind I was reading propaganda mostly - so I skipped the bits where Richard goes on a bit to get to the next plot point.

Before I read some of the posts on here I also thought he was a bit perverted - lots of rape scenes in his books - and it would appear that others share my views on this. Some of it ain't pretty (or necessary).

After finishing Confessor I didn't feel anything. Apart from relief. It did ruin it a bit for me that before I finished the series I found out more about the man, the myth, the legend (in a non-fantasy sense, of course) and it made it harder to read the books without thinking "wot a load of claptrap" - but then, I'm a Christian so who am I to talk! I did like some of his ideas, and appreciated the books for what they are.

I am proud I managed the whole series, but I'm selling them all now to the local read and return bookshop - unlike my Robin Hobbs which I'm keeping cos I know I'll want to re-read them.

So, in summary - books alright, ignore the author.
:)
 

LJonesy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
86
Oooo! Goody - a place to share!

Before I read some of the posts on here I also thought he was a bit perverted - lots of rape scenes in his books - and it would appear that others share my views on this. Some of it ain't pretty (or necessary).

Yes i tend to wonder to what goes through someones mind to be so explicit about anything macabre when they're trying to make a philosophical point.

...made it harder to read the books without thinking "wot a load of claptrap" - but then, I'm a Christian so who am I to talk! I did like some of his ideas, and appreciated the books for what they are.

Who are you to talk? Of course you can call his Philosiphy(is that spelt right?) a load of clap trap. You have as much right as any other.

So, in summary - books alright, ignore the author.
:)

Agreed, about Wizards First Rule until i get to the others.
 

Toby Frost

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
6,990
I've not read Mr Goodkind's books, but he comes across as a prat in the interview that was posted here. Whatever good points he may make in his interview (and he makes one or two), they are hidden under a thick layer of arrogance.

In fairness, though, being intolerably arrogant appears to be a fundamental part of Objectivism. Objectivism encourages people to be "a big man", which really means obnoxious and rude to anyone less powerful than yourself. "Be the best you can" seems to mean "tell everyone else how stupid they are". (I always got the impression that Ayn Rand had a thing for powerful, domineering men and made up Objectivism to justify it.)

Incidentally, Rand herself is a terrible writer. Real naff, cheesy, lecturing stuff. I gave up on Atlas Shrugged, which is supposed to be her masterpiece.
 

LJonesy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
86
I've not read Mr Goodkind's books, but he comes across as a prat in the interview that was posted here. Whatever good points he may make in his interview (and he makes one or two), they are hidden under a thick layer of arrogance.

You're right about the thick layer of arrogance. I'm not defending Goodkind, simply saying that his Anti-Kantianism is good. I read up on Kantian ways of thinking and it shocked me to see how applicable it was to the western world today. So his Anti-Kantianism i like. I don't quite agree with Objectivism, but you know the old saying "The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend"
 

Top