Sign in with Facebook
J.G. Keely's Reviews > Wizard's First Rule
Wizard's First Rule (Sword of Truth, #1)
by
by
It is always curious to see fantasy authors who don't consider themselves to be fantasy authors. Case-in-point: Terry Goodkind. The former landscape painter has told us how he isn't a fantasy author in every interview he's ever given:
"The books I write are first of all novels, not fantasy, and that is deliberate; I'm really writing books about human beings."
"To define me as a fantasy writer is to misunderstand the context of my books by misidentifying their fundamentals."
"The stories I'm telling are not fantasy-driven, they're character-driven, and the characters I want to write about could be set in any world. I'd like to address a broader audience."
""What I have done with my work has irrevocably changed the face of fantasy. In so doing I've raised the standards. I have not only injected thought into a tired empty genre, but, more importantly, I've transcended it showing what more it can be . . ."
Then the interview usually devolves into a discussion of Ayn Rand and 'the meaning of art', just in case you missed the pretension of declaring fantasy books 'not fantasy!'
The guy certainly has a chip on his shoulder, but it makes me wonder whether he has actually read any fantasy. He doesn't seem to realize that the things he claims separate him from fantasy are fundamental parts of how modern fantasy works. A novel that's fundamentally about character interactions with a magical setting? How droll. Goodkind doesn't reinventing the novel; he doesn't even reinvent the fantasy novel, he just twists the knobs to get a little more steam out of it.
Michael Moorcock as a false romantic, which is rather apt considering that his love story takes place almost entirely in absentia (prompting Peter Jackson to infuse some extra loving with a hot, elven, psychic dream sequence). Most fantasy authors rectify this by having the girl come along for the journey. Goodkind likes to keep the separation for much of the story as our hero tries to seek her out across a continent (though she is often just in the next room! Oh! What a tragic coincidence!)
Actually, after the first time it's just an annoying and painfully artificial way to try to hold off the conclusion for another hundred pages. It's a good thing Terry doesn't have to rely on magical or artificial means to keep his stories fresh!
The rest of the time, the hero finds the girl and lovingly transfixes her on his mighty sword. No, really. I'm not sure why these authors always end up feeling as if they have to dump their sex fetish issues at this particular juncture: "Huh, I dig BDSM. Maybe I should confide my fantasies in a book for mass publication".
I cannot think of a single female character in the entire series who isn't either raped or threatened with rape. If you want to give me an example of one, remember: I'm counting magical psychic blowjob rape as rape. I wish I never had the opportunity to qualify a statement with 'don't forget the psychic blowjob rape'.
I don't mind actual BDSM literature, but I'd rather have my own reaction to it than be told "isn't it totally dirty and wrong!? (but still super sexy, right?)" Porn for porn's sake is fine, but remember, Goodkind isn't some escapist fantasy author, these are 'real stories about real people' so he has to act like his magic porn is somehow a reflection of real life.
Goodkind's books are cookie-cutter genre fantasy, but the first few aren't that badly done, and if you like people narrowly missing one another, bondage, masochism, rape, and dragons, it might work for you, but the series dies on arrival part-way through, so prepare for disappointment.
If you are enjoying the series, you should probably avoid reading any of his interviews, as he rarely misses an opportunity to claim that he is superior to all other fantasy authors, and never compare him to Robert Jordan, because
"If you notice a similarity, then you probably aren't old enough to read my books."
Goodkind truly lives in his own fantasy world if he thinks his mediocre genre re-hash is 'original' or 'deep'.
Then again, I've never met an adherent of Ayn Rand who didn't consider themselves a brilliant and unique snowflake trapped in a world of people who 'just don't understand'. The are also laid on pretty thickly in his books, but at least he found a substitute grandmother figure to help him justify his as 'high art'.
All in all, he's just another guy who likes to hear himself talk. Despite what he says, nothing separates his work from the average modern fantasy author, and like them, his greatest failing is the complete lack of self-awareness that overwhelms his themes, plots, and characters.
"The books I write are first of all novels, not fantasy, and that is deliberate; I'm really writing books about human beings."
"To define me as a fantasy writer is to misunderstand the context of my books by misidentifying their fundamentals."
"The stories I'm telling are not fantasy-driven, they're character-driven, and the characters I want to write about could be set in any world. I'd like to address a broader audience."
""What I have done with my work has irrevocably changed the face of fantasy. In so doing I've raised the standards. I have not only injected thought into a tired empty genre, but, more importantly, I've transcended it showing what more it can be . . ."
Then the interview usually devolves into a discussion of Ayn Rand and 'the meaning of art', just in case you missed the pretension of declaring fantasy books 'not fantasy!'
The guy certainly has a chip on his shoulder, but it makes me wonder whether he has actually read any fantasy. He doesn't seem to realize that the things he claims separate him from fantasy are fundamental parts of how modern fantasy works. A novel that's fundamentally about character interactions with a magical setting? How droll. Goodkind doesn't reinventing the novel; he doesn't even reinvent the fantasy novel, he just twists the knobs to get a little more steam out of it.
Michael Moorcock as a false romantic, which is rather apt considering that his love story takes place almost entirely in absentia (prompting Peter Jackson to infuse some extra loving with a hot, elven, psychic dream sequence). Most fantasy authors rectify this by having the girl come along for the journey. Goodkind likes to keep the separation for much of the story as our hero tries to seek her out across a continent (though she is often just in the next room! Oh! What a tragic coincidence!)
Actually, after the first time it's just an annoying and painfully artificial way to try to hold off the conclusion for another hundred pages. It's a good thing Terry doesn't have to rely on magical or artificial means to keep his stories fresh!
The rest of the time, the hero finds the girl and lovingly transfixes her on his mighty sword. No, really. I'm not sure why these authors always end up feeling as if they have to dump their sex fetish issues at this particular juncture: "Huh, I dig BDSM. Maybe I should confide my fantasies in a book for mass publication".
I cannot think of a single female character in the entire series who isn't either raped or threatened with rape. If you want to give me an example of one, remember: I'm counting magical psychic blowjob rape as rape. I wish I never had the opportunity to qualify a statement with 'don't forget the psychic blowjob rape'.
I don't mind actual BDSM literature, but I'd rather have my own reaction to it than be told "isn't it totally dirty and wrong!? (but still super sexy, right?)" Porn for porn's sake is fine, but remember, Goodkind isn't some escapist fantasy author, these are 'real stories about real people' so he has to act like his magic porn is somehow a reflection of real life.
Goodkind's books are cookie-cutter genre fantasy, but the first few aren't that badly done, and if you like people narrowly missing one another, bondage, masochism, rape, and dragons, it might work for you, but the series dies on arrival part-way through, so prepare for disappointment.
If you are enjoying the series, you should probably avoid reading any of his interviews, as he rarely misses an opportunity to claim that he is superior to all other fantasy authors, and never compare him to Robert Jordan, because
"If you notice a similarity, then you probably aren't old enough to read my books."
Goodkind truly lives in his own fantasy world if he thinks his mediocre genre re-hash is 'original' or 'deep'.
Then again, I've never met an adherent of Ayn Rand who didn't consider themselves a brilliant and unique snowflake trapped in a world of people who 'just don't understand'. The are also laid on pretty thickly in his books, but at least he found a substitute grandmother figure to help him justify his as 'high art'.
All in all, he's just another guy who likes to hear himself talk. Despite what he says, nothing separates his work from the average modern fantasy author, and like them, his greatest failing is the complete lack of self-awareness that overwhelms his themes, plots, and characters.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Wizard's First Rule.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Comments Showing 1-50 of 119 (119 new)
message 1:
by
Dave
(last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:19PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Sep 04, 2007 10:48AM
Whenever I read your reviews, whether I agree with them or not, I enjoy the fact that you hold novels up to a higher standard [not giving practically every above average book a 4-5:].
reply
|
flag
Heh. I was wondering how long it would take you to stumble across my review of what appears to be your favorite book.Of course, the very interesting thing here is the definition of 'average', which can statistically represent many different things. In this case, this book is certainly below average in some regards, but above in others.
If one were to to take all the books that have been written and published and place them on a scale, then we would see that actual quality texts take up perhaps one to five per cent of that whole. These would be the texts that contained some of the following: good prose, interesting story, psychology, competent plotting, philosophical meaning, creativity, or the like.
In this case, we see that about ninety-five per cent of books will merit only a 1 star rating and that the remaining five per cent will span from two to five stars. So, the average book will, in this case, be a one-star book.
However, one could build the continuum in another way, as well: if we instead made a scale of quality instead of quantity, we then have the 'average' book being any three-star book. In this case, not only are the ninety-five per cent of one-star books below average, so are all of the two-star.
We then have the remaining tiny percentile of books which achieve four or five stars being the only ones above average.
In Goodkind's case, I do certainly find him to be above the thronging masses of authors, but not due to some great skill but rather because they are, by and large, terrible. When one considers this in the vein of fantasy authors, it is much more dire, because most fantasy books are one-star rehashes of Tolkien.
However, on the quality continuum, Goodkind is a transparent and naively unoriginal author buttressed by a few curious ideas here or there (which keeps his head above water in that sea of Bad Fantasy). His comprehension of plot, psychology, poetic prose, philosophy, or place in literature are all sadly underdeveloped and leave him below that qualitative average.
It does sadden me that an above-average author is one with the barest capabilities of art or thought, but the same could be said for above-average humans.
I'd just like to say by way of Post Script that I was a bit confused when I saw your comment on The Giver. You see, my best friend is a former Christian and lover of fantasy literature named Dave who I met when he was around 15, and I thought for a moment that he was playing a bit of a trick on me. Of course, coincidence is not the exception but the rule of life.
I'm happy that you replied, but I do not particularly care about the ways to look at how average a book can be, even my favorite book :). Thats not what I'm getting at, thats not even why I asked to be your friend. What I want is your response to my comment on the Giver. Your input seemed to be my best choice if I wanted a clear and non-bias review. My generation has kind of wandered off in between the rock and the hard place,so to speak, on the topic of books, reading, and liturature on a scale of popularity.
And Accually, it would've been difficult to stumble across your review on my favorite book due to lack of internet access on a lake in Northern Indiana. Meh, but thats ok, time is not an issue. Especially over the long, four count labor day weekend.
You may be confused about what I am asking of you, but don't be alarmed. This is not the first time I have asked someone this question.
This may be too private, or even forward, but I couldn't help asking what you do for a living.
I see that you are 24 so maybe you are still in college, or grad school, maybe even on your way to getting a masters.
And what music do you like? Your profile says you play Guitar, so you must have some musical preference...
Please try to get back to me on this.
Thanks, dave
I have about 20 pages left to read in this book. I think your quite right when you say there are enough good things to keep this book from being bad, and plenty to keep it from being great.My friend told me the series eventually "goes off the rails." I can't imagine how Goodkind writes more than two books in this series without resorting to cheap tricks to drag things out.
Well, he uses the same cheap tricks in the first book, they just become less and less interesting each time he has to pull them out again.But yeah, almost everyone I know who has read the series has stopped around the same book because he just loses the bit of momentum he started with.
I think it's inevitable that he should have to resort to the cheap tricks more and more if he hopes to fill books of this size on the same people... multiple times. But to be fair, I think that that's true of almost all fantasy authors. By its nature, the genre is generally pretty formulaic. David Eddings (who I loved in my pre-teen years) put out an amusing, very accurate basic formula to write a fantasy, and I've yet to come across a fantasy series that doesn't exactly follow those rules. I think people know what they're in for, to a certain extent, when they open a fantasy novel. I don't think one should have any expectations of a dazzlingly new thing in its pages. If it makes you laugh, has solid writing, and surprises you a few times with plot twists, that's a decent fantasy experience. Fantasy is by its nature escapist and comforting- however much that can be accomplished with the genre, and believe me, I'm a fan of it.
So yeah, it's ridiculous that Goodkind said he wanted to re-invent the novel, but if you ignore that remark, I think the first few books of this series make for pretty good yarn.
I've come to the point where I personally can no longer follow the formula and enjoy it. I read a lot of the standard fantasy authors as a kid, and enjoyed them, but after looking at the monomyth and other mythical origins of genre fantasy, they now fall really short for me.I also don't care much for escapism anymore, so that may be a contributing factor. There are a lot of fantasy novels and even series which break the mold and explore very different elements of what it means to create myth, but they are not as accessible as your standard fantasy, so they don't have the same wide fanbase.
A lot of the books written before Tolkien have very different modes (The Worm Ouroboros, R.E. Howard, Lord Dunsany, H.P. Lovecraft, C.S. Lewis, &c.) and there are contemporaries of Tolkien who were also exploring their own concepts of the fantastic (Mervyn Peake, Michael Moorcock, Ursula LeGuin, T.H. White). Unfortunately, most authors directly influenced by Tolkien did not have a wide enough basis of inspiration to fall far from the tree.
There are also a fair number of modern authors who are trying to change and reimagine the genre, including China Mieville, Neal Gaiman, Marion Bradley, Fred Saberhagen, Phillip Pullman, Gene Wolf, and even J.K. Rowling (though her influences are from a slightly different genre).
Of course, you could read a fantasy book a day for the rest of your life and never come across those authors.
I suppose it's hard for me to ignore Goodkind's 'reinventing the novel' comment because it underlines exactly what the problem with his books is: a complete lack of awareness of his place and role as an author in relation to genre and craft.
That's the problem with most fantasy authors, and, in fact, most uninspired pop authors of any genre. I don't think anyone can be a good author if they already think that they are; look at Margaret Atwood.
In light of that, I feel I should decline any claims of brilliance on my part, but I'd hate to inflame the temper of such a sure man.
I am not sure I want to read the next book after reading the sneak preview at the back of Wizard's First rule. The last fantasy series I read that used a lot of prophecy was the Wheel of Time.I can't believe that reinventing the novel comment.
That is a nice list of authors. I should really read some H.P. Lovecraft sometime. I find myself time and time again looking up things that turn out being references to his work.
Any suggestions for a first Lovecraft read?
I am sorry, Keely. I shouldn't have been so general. Of course there are exceptions to the rule. Particularly Neil Gaiman, in terms of what the genre can do and breaking the rules on how it can be conveyed. But even Neil Gaiman does the predictably laid out stories sometimes. Stardust is an example of that. It's well done, but still. That's the base that they all work from, and you're right, I don't think they ever entirely escape the quest format of Tolkien. And just to make a mild peep on behalf of Margaret Atwood, I honestly haven't read any of her books, but my friends keep sending quotes from her at me, and I must say that the woman can turn a phrase, so its not like she's completely talentless.
I'm not the type to over-annalize material, especially books. If I already like a book, then why over-annalize it for the sake of finding something to dislike? Is it human nature, or something else? Whatever it is, i couldn't really care less because I try to enjoy every book just the way it is, and the way its meant to be read.I see you guys constantly jabber on and on about Goodkind's writing style, his motives, and his tricks that it almost makes me sick to my stomach. Who cares, just read the book. Enjoy it or not. Take it for what it is; nothing more, nothing less.
Lovecraft did mostly short stories, so just pick up one of the many collections. Most people like the big monster stories (Dunwich Horror, Call of Cthulhu, Rats in the Walls) but I prefer his more conceptual sci-fi stuff, like 'The Silver Key'.It is a little-known fact that Howard's Conan the Barbarian stories are set in the same world as Lovecraft's.
Christopher Paolini (who wrote 'Eragon') is another fantasy author who thinks a lot of himself. He compared himself to "Tolkien at his best and Seamus Heany's translation of Beowulf". I don't know why it's the middling talents who get delusions of grandeur. Memento Mori.
Thanks for decorously ignoring my bad pun, Donald. Very gentlemanly.
I've actually not read any of Atwood's books, either, I was making a slight literary joke there based upon interviews and her quotes. That and the critiques of some friends of mine. My impression of the woman is that she's highfalutin without being meaningful. Her syntactical and grammatical structure may be beyond editorial reproach, but to me it feels like she's using Italian marble to build a grain silo.
I'd agree that Gaiman is still under the operation of his own predictable patterns, and it is often that which I find disappointing in him. However, I merely meant to express a deviation from the faux-feudal monomyth of Tolkien and his endless legions of followers.
Well, Dave, how will we know if we like it or not without analysis? Everyone analyzes every book they read, whether they realize it or not. That's how we determine what we like.
I'd never try to find a reason to dislike a book, that would be like starting with a premise and then trying to justify everything else to make it true. You start with what the book gives you, and then work towards an opinion based on that.
By understanding what I like and dislike, I can be a bbetter reader and a better writer, and I can find books that I know will not only please me, but will help me to explore myself and my world.
Our critiques of Goodkind are there for anyone to see and comment on. If you disagree with them, tell us why. The point of discourse is that you present ideas and then try to come to an agreement about them.
If you agree, but still like Goodkind, then you'll find yourself in good company. None of us said we didn't like the book, just that it wasn't that original or well-written.
We aren't trying to bash or go against Goodkind; I don't think anyone here has feelings strong enough about him or his books to go out of our way to try to do that.
These are just thoughts and ideas. If you don't agree, you're going to have to give us an alternative or a well-reasoned argument or this won't get anywhere. If you don't want to think about how books are constructed by their authors or how they compare to other books, then why come here to comment?
I would say the quest format predates Tolkien by plenty of centuries. :PLet's face it, there are only so many templates once you boil a story down to it's essence. My Design professor's mantra was "There are no new ideas, just new combinations of old ideas." Obviously this doesn't apply to everything but I find it works in general for the Fantasy genre. I agree with you Kelly, you can follow a formula and pull it off if you have the skills.
The only Atwood novel I remember reading was "A Handmaid's Tale." I quite enjoyed it. This brings to a mind something I read called "Lies that Canadians keep telling themselves." One of them was "Margaret Atwood can't write a bad book."
I think there is a distinction to be made between reading a book, and studying a book. As well, I think it's important to be able to describe why you liked or disliked a book. You can stick to the star rating if you don't want specifics. :)
thanks for the recommendations Keely. I had no idea it was the same world as Howard's Conan. Wow, what an arrogant jerk. I guess that's what happens when a 15 year old gets a bestselling series.
No problem. I know how hard it is to find more original fantasy, so I don't mind passing on what others have recommended to me.He was homeschooled; no one taught him better. If he'd had the bullies and competition I had, he'd never think he was a good enough writer. The worst part is that his book follows the exact plot of Star Wars and I don't think he realized it at the time.
It would be silly for me to suggest that people should write entirely new types of story. The only meaning our stories have is by how they follow or break the known patterns we have set up for them, just like music. Indeed, I don't think the story is generally as important as the way it is told. However, I don't think Goodkind does anything particularly interesting with the Hero/Quest/Monomyth.
Looking at other genres, like the epic, we can see how each successful writer was the one who subverted and changed the tradition to highlight different ideas and questions.
Homer began with his heroic figure, then Virgil changed it from a strong and wily character to a pious and faithful one. Milton then changed the hero into the villain to represent that violence and hubris were outdated modes and that the new man should be peaceful and humble.
Then Byron took the evil hero and kept him that way, but set him in a world of ambiguous and arbitrary morality so that he again became good. Then Eliot did some wacky stuff that takes a long time to talk about and requres conversational French.
Each author changed what the way the story worked culturally, but still used the same basic setup to tell the story.
So you're saying you enjoyed WFR? In that case I apologize.As I continue reading the series, I see now that Goodkind was slowely growing as an author as he wrote. He stummbled along the way with plot and editing, but he got back on track with the story, finding his reason for even starting the series. I can't blame you all for your ideas, or keely's uncanny abilty to appear bashing an author, but actually just critiquing, but I guess I can present my own ideas as well.
All in all, I enjoyed Goodkind's Series, The Sword of Truth, because it taught me (apperently contraversial) leasons.
Thats all. I didn't need to over analize his books to enjoy them, and no, I feel no regret or feelings of self-denial for avoiding the popular opinion. I don't believe we have to analize books to like them, nor do I believe I analize books involuntarily. I didn't understand Farenheit 451 at all, or attempt to, but it remains my favorite book.
I gave it two stars. It wasn't horrid, but it didn't achieve anything new or interesting, either. The writing was average, the plot elements were a little forced, and the author's point-of-view was a bit transparent.I certainly enjoyed it when I read it, because it was different enough from the standard fantasy fare I was used to, but it still isn't much more than a variation on a theme.
As for analysis, I'd disagree that you don't do it when you read. You look at the ideas and issues in the text and you approach them from your experience. This doesn't have to be anything complex. Saying you like the main character because he sacrifices to help others is an analysis of the book.
If it taught you lessons, then you were not only responding to ideas, but internalizing them and using them in your own life. Analysis is nothing more than taking what the book says and responding to it.
If you think the idea works, then that's your analysis, and you have your own reasons why based on what you have experienced. Contrarily, if you think it does not work, then that is your analysis.
Farenheit 451 isn't a very difficult book to analyze, because the author tends to tell you exactly what his ideas are. It was written very quickly and a lot of it doesn't mesh together, so it isn't surprising if you don't feel like you 'got it'.
I don't tend to go out of my way to analyze books, I just react to what I see in them based on my experience. Of course, my experience is different because I am an author and have an interest in the tools and methods writers use to create their books.
Sometimes I will go and look to other books, reviews, and critiques of books, but mostly because I want to give the book a fair shake. I know I might miss things, and I don't want to make a half-assed review.
You said that you will go and look to other books, review, etc. because you want to give it a "fair shake", but I feel you are doing it more to understand your own preferences in a work. Of course, i'm not trying to tell you what is and what isn't about your life(even though you tell me it's alright), i'm only analizing your reviews and feedback.I think your def. of analizing is a little different than mine, because while I see your points, I don't remember disagreeing with them. Just to clear things up a bit, when I said Annalize, I meant only the "finding something to disagree with". If this sounds inconsistant, then I must have a different view of your statement,
"I'd never try to find a reason to dislike a book, that would be like starting with a premise and then trying to justify everything else to make it true. You start with what the book gives you, and then work towards an opinion based on that"
and then hooking in the act of analizing to this opinion.
While it may not seem so, I do consider myself an author, but of poetry only. Haha, and I also enjoy finding the tools and methods to authors writing styles and overall processes.I've writen a few things in the past 2 years that I'll show you if you want.
Just and update:I am about 1/5 of the way into book four now. I am finding the series is getting better. Book two had some interesting twists that I didn't see coming. I guess I had been duped into thinking the story was quite predictable after that first book.
The final 150 pages of Book Three were exciting as all the separate story lines were climaxing at the same time and Terry jumped between them in an enjoyable manner.
That being said, this series makes me want to re-read the Wheel of Time. I don't know what was written first out of the two series, but the similarities are ridiculous at times. I read WOT when I was a teen perhaps I have become a bit smarter over the years, and the WOT isn't as complex and in depth as I remember it being...but The Sword of Truth series feels like the lite version of the WOT.
One thing I keep noticing with this series, and I am sure there is a proper term for it, but there is a lot of reverse Deus ex machina.
What I mean, is the characters are so powerful that in order for them to get into trouble some plot twist or creature's ability has to conveniently happen. It always seems to happen so abruptly in this series too.
I take that as a no...
Sorry. I've opened up the 'post comment' window a few times, but have been rather distracted as of late and not actually gotten around to responding.I'd certainly be willing to ready anything you sent me. I've done so with others before. If it's fifty pages I probably won't read all of it: I'm a slow reader. Then again, modern poets almost never write anything of length.
As to your other comments, I don't think my goal in extended reading of criticisms is simply to reinforce my own opinions, as there have been many cases where I find a review which disagrees with my initial thoughts about the book and which makes solid enough points that it changes my mind on the subject.
Indeed, I often look for reviews which run contrary to my opinions, especially for books I have great respect for, to try to keep myself 'honest'. I can almost always find a negative review whose major points I agree on, though sometimes I do not feel these points lead to the critic's conclusion.
Analyzing doesn't mean disagreeing, it simply means looking at the subject and developing ideas from it based upon your prior experience. A critic is not someone who makes negative statements, but a person who tries to speak honestly and thoughtfully about something.
A lot of people think a critic is someone who just says bad things, but this is mainly because people tend to remember bad things more than good ones.
The quote you gave of me was simply a definition of the act of analysis, that you take what you can from a book and then form opinions based of that. Some of those opinions are bound to be negative, and some positive, since no author or book is either perfect or complete. Neither are critics, for that matter.
Of course, if you read a book and do find things which are problematic and inconsistent, then it is perfectly natural to form a negative opinion on it.
We all form our positive and negative opinions off of what the book gives us. I try to find points in the book which define why I like or dislike it and then present those. If anyone disagrees with me, then they can talk about those examples or bring in new ones. We have a common ground of discussion.
If someone merely says they like or dislike a book but don't know the reasons why, then what can they possibly discuss about the book?
I meant over-analizing material. Yes, I do analize material.
Well, If by overanalysis, you mean extending your analysis beyond the point of feasability, then please, point out where my analysis goes too far. 'analyzing' does not mean finding fault in a work, but balancing the faults against the strengths and thereby judging the quality and impact of the work.We can each only analyze according to our experiences, so it would make sense that there would be a difference between the way you look at a work and the way I do.
I compare Goodkind to other authors in and out of fantasy, as he himself has demanded I do in interviews, and have not found him to be particularly original in his concepts or engaging in their execution. If this analysis goes too far, please let me know how.
If your last request was rhretorical, then i'll leave it at that. If it was honest, then I would have to bring up the point you made referencing "judge by our own experiences". This would easily bring this comment forum to a calm conclusion.You are different from Me. I like it.
Wouldn't it be a shame to write off our differences so simply? If it all boils down to "we are different, so why discuss it?", then there's no reason to discuss anything with anyone, since we are all different in opinions and experiences.Your experiences are different from mine, but I'd rather learn from those differing experiences than cease discussion because of them. It's been said that one of the best ways to learn is to seek out that which seems hateful or nonsensical to you and to try to understand it.
Luckily, I find you neither hateful nor nonsensical, so it shouldn't be so hard as all that. Indeed, I'm on this site in part to observe and learn from other experiences, but I understand that I am rather demanding when it comes to explanation for them.
My only hope is that I remain as probing of my own thoughts as I am of the thoughts of others.
If it all tires you, you could harldy be blamed: there is nothing so tiring as trying to understand why other people do what they do.
Agreed. Well, since all has been previously stated, I have to agree with you that my opinion on Wizard's First Rule is naive. You bring forth valid and conclusive points on how Goodkind is an average author, and even my opinion of him is changing now.
I think he's better than the average fantasy author, but he isn't 'reinventing the novel' or anything. It wasn't until I read a lot of other (fantasy) authors that I started to realize that his books are somewhat unoriginal. He certainly held my attention when I first read him, and helped to introduce me to the fantasy genre. I wouldn't discourage others from reading him, especially if they are looking for something fun. I like him alright, but he's not a singular talent.
It's funny that I refer to him as average, considering most fantasy authors are averaging 'below' average (confusing I know) in a lot of people's minds. I support this by using my high school as an example. Most of the kids I previously came to know through fantasy novels are now slowly, but surely, straying farther and farther away from the fantasy genre. They're explainations of this include a common disgust for the indifferent plots, and resolutions within. They are getting bored.
Yeah, there seem to be two general groups amongst fantasy fans: there are those who grow tired of the repetition and seek out something new, and there are the kind who are glad to get something entirely familiar and predictable.I think it probably boils down to whether you are the sort of person interested in learning new things about the world, or in avoiding the world. I don't tend to think avoiding it is very healthy, but it can be a big, scary place.
Of course, there are avoidant types in many genres: sci fi, mystery, romance, and pop fiction. Fantasy just seems to cater to a certain group. Like comic books, the point of a lot of fantasy stories is to enact a 'power fantasy', which is useful for adolescents, especially young boys.
There is a point when a young person recognizes that they are a human being who is supposed to make their own way in the world, but who is still under the rules and protection of the adults around them (parents, teachers, &c.). This can be a very frustrating situation, especially as one gets older, because one more and more wants to take their power and do something with their life, but there is often no outlet to do this.
Indeed, our society tends to cut you off from doing anything productive until about eighteen, and being told you are not an adult when you feel like one can be a very frustrating situation. The point of a power fantasy is to vent some of this frustration by reading about a character who is taking their own power in the world, whether they be a sorcerer king or a super-powered man from beyond the stars.
Reading about someone who is active in engaging and changing the world can help relieve the stress of being powerless, yourself. It is unfortunate that, for many people, this urge never goes away. Even when we do become adults, we may end up working pointless jobs under bad managers and still feel like we have no power or freedom to express ourselves.
The desire for escapism comes out when a person is too afraid or confused to get unstuck from their current position in life. Learning and changing is often painful, and so many people would prefer to stick with what they know.
I'm glad that the people you know are exploring other avenues. I still love the fantasy genre, and I think it's unfortunate that many of its most devoted fans will never read some of the very experimental and interesting reaches of the genre.
What are some of those reaches?Oh and by the way, my opinion and review of The Wizard's First Rule remains. I still think that book was excellent. He could have easily stopped the series there.
Well, there are those authors I mentioned before in this thread (E.R. Eddison, R.E. Howard, Lord Dunsany, H.P. Lovecraft, China Mieville, Neal Gaiman, Marion Bradley, Fred Saberhagen, Phillip Pullman, and Gene Wolf), plus there's Fritz Leiber, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Mervyn Peake, Susanna Clarke, Troy Denning, Robin McKinley, Stephen R. Donaldson, Philip José Farmer, and Ursula K. Le Guin.
They are various in their levels of experimentation, but don't tend towards the median of Fantasy like Goodkind, Paolini, Jordan, or Brooks. Of course, half of these I'm still working on myself, so if any of this advice leads you astray, my apologies.
fyi, Sam Raimi (Creator of Xena) is bringing Wizard's First Rule to television this fall as a new series.
Yeah I saw that. They also created the Spiderman movies. I hope they're good.
Oh and by the way, the TV series is deplorable. Just letting you all know in case one of you listening in were remotely interested in it.
Well I have to disagree with you on the tv show. It is not an amazing fantasy drama but really its not that bad! Compared to a lot of the bad tv that people make its pretty good!!
Goodkind truly lives in his own fantasy world if he thinks his mediocre genre re-hash is 'original' or 'deep'.Kinda sounds like Nicholas Sparks saying that "nobody does the kind of writing I do."
Yeah, there's so much pretension out there with writers. Funny thing is, I've never seen a great writer who thought their own stuff was amazing. Then again, a big part of writing is constantly changing and refining the process, which isn't something you bother to do when you think it's already great. Thanks for the link, very apt.
So... rape... I'm 11 is this appropriate at all?
Well, the first book isn't as bad as some of the later ones, but yeah, it does have some weird sex torture stuff in it, so I'm not sure it would be ideal for you.Maybe you could check out A Wizard of Earthsea , it's the first book in a classic fantasy series, and it doesn't have uncomfortable, weird stuff like this one.
I'm surprised you didn't give this one star. This novel was trash.
Well, it has been a while since I read it--if I read it again now, I might be harsher. That being said, I found the story more exciting and direct than something like Robert Jordan.
Keely wrote: "Well, it has been a while since I read it--if I read it again now, I might be harsher. That being said, I found the story more exciting and direct than something like Robert Jordan."
-_-
My brother also thinks so, I for one preferred Jordan's work (even though both were rubbish).
-_-
My brother also thinks so, I for one preferred Jordan's work (even though both were rubbish).
Well, I guess once we're sitting down asking which piece of rubbish is the better one, it's a fairly inconsequential distinction.
wow.. what an interesting assessment. I'm not being sarcastic. I rather liked WFR though I agree with your comparison to WoT series.
I know it's been a while but I honestly can't figure out what on earth you would mean by magical psychic blowjob rape I guess I'll have to revisit this book. As someone who enjoyed WFR on numerous reads I'm ok with that.
As for Goodkind's assessment of his series (not fantasy) with regards to WFR I completely agree. It's him being a bit banal. I does kind of fit into some of the later books that are more about his philosophical leanings than the fantasy. So much so that the first time I remember skipping large chunks just to get on with the story.
The psychic blowjob rape doesn't occur until one of the later books in the series. But yeah, it can be bothersome in these huge fantasy books where there are whole long passages of dull rambling and pointless descriptions where it seems like the author has forgotten about the story and is just indulging his own philosophies or obsessions.Glad you found the review interesting, thanks for the comment.
nice review Keely! And an interesting comments thread- 'analize' and BDSM! *dies laughing*
I read on your book suggestion list, which was really intriguing by the way, that you said that you found some ideas about Wizard's First Rule fun. I'm just curious as to know what were those ideas, exactly?
Chinmayee said: "nice review Keely! And an interesting comments thread"Heh, thanks.
Uncommon Sellsword said: "you said that you found some ideas about Wizard's First Rule fun. I'm just curious as to know what were those ideas, exactly?"
Oh, mostly just little elements of the world that were a bit different from most pop fantasy. Like in a later book, there are a series of magic stones around a kingdom, and if you strike them, they reverberate and kill everything around them, acting as a protective wall. But, the people who ring the stones also die, as would anyone near any of the other stones when they were struck. Stuff like that.
Ahahahahaha! I looooved this review. I almost cried.
Haha, thanks. Glad you liked it.
