Single-minded Terry Goodkind

[LJonesy]

Originally Posted by jenna

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*.

Originally Posted by jenna

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Calm Water

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.

Originally Posted by Calm Water

...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.

Originally Posted by Calm Water

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

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

[Tobytwo]

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]

Originally Posted by Tobytwo

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"

[Ramoth's Rider]

Not read the whole thread but have got to say this.

from what i have read, certain peoplehave said Oh Mr Goodkind is rubbish, self obsessed blah blah blah. Oh no sorry i havent read any of his books!.

I HAVE read the sword of Truth and yes i agree there was a preaching element come the later books, but just because the writer is arrogant or self absorbed in an interview or even in real life is no reason to bash his work if you havent read it.

The message in the books is to live your own life to a set of moral values. The wizards rules are well thought out as values. Having Blind faith in something doesnt make it right is another idea from his books.

Is that so wrong?

[LJonesy]

Originally Posted by Ramoth's Rider

Not read the whole thread but have got to say this.

from what i have read, certain peoplehave said Oh Mr Goodkind is rubbish, self obsessed blah blah blah. Oh no sorry i havent read any of his books!.

I HAVE read the sword of Truth and yes i agree there was a preaching element come the later books, but just because the writer is arrogant or self absorbed in an interview or even in real life is no reason to bash his work if you havent read it.

The message in the books is to live your own life to a set of moral values. The wizards rules are well thought out as values. Having Blind faith in something doesnt make it right is another idea from his books.

Is that so wrong?

I have read his books.

It's not whether it's 'so wrong' or not that bugs me personally, it's just that he's lacking humility for the position he's in. That position, of that kind of influence, requires a certain amount of humility to spread a positive influence. Threads like this wouldn't exist if he wasn't so pompous and arrogant about the things he's done.

The bashing on his work comes from different perspectives, for different reasons. There are other reasons to, like this quote here: "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-and is so doing spread my readership to completely new groups who don’t like and wont ready typical fantasy."

Originally Posted by Ramoth's Rider

Is that so wrong?

Essentially you're right, Goodkind hasn't done wrong, he's just abusing his position. Those who've read his books have found it mediocre and cliche, they bash his works for their literary reasons, not because he's a pompous ass. And by all means, they're allowed to have a point of view about his books and the man himself like that.

Please don't think i'm having a go at you or anything - this thread looks very jumbled and stating everything clearly like this i'd hope would help consolidate everything that's been said.

[Tobytwo]

I haven't read his books; I went purely on his attitude on the linked interviews. I have nothing to say about the books, but I think he does himself no favours in interview by adopting an arrogant tone of voice. He makes some valid points in the interviews - his comment about the legitimacy of the Iraq war, for instance, is fair whether you agree with it or not - but his high-handed tone is very disagreeable.

[the smiling weirwood]

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

In fact, I've been kind of looking at the library for something of his. Haven't come across anything yet, though.

Being connected to the Head Librarian at our the county headquarters by blood I was successful in my petition to remove his works from the collection entire. I don't regret abusing my power at all.

That wouldn't explain your situation at all, but perhaps someone with a similar bent of mind took care of it.

In response to the thread, it is extremely apparent from his novels after about the third one that he is an unpleasant and pedantic person. I will admit that the first book was very good, but like Robert Jordan and the Wheel of Boredom it should have ended there instead of trailing off like a wounded animal. After Wizard's First Rule it gets steadily worse, both in terms of writing quality and the fact that he replaces plot, character depth(what little existed that is), and setting with his "philosophical" arguments and perverted sexual violence.

[Tobytwo]

Hummn, not sure if that was the right thing to do. He may be a git, and his views may be not entirely pleasant, but I'm not sure that is good grounds for removing him from the library. I suppose it depends whether his books are inciting something nasty or whether they are being given to the young. (And also on what grounds the library is allowed to chuck out books).

Years ago there was a debate among SF writers whether Heinlein's Starship Troopers should be put into children's libraries, as it is a political book aimed at persuading readers and it arguably glorifies war in a false manner. It's a difficult one, but people do have the right to offend us. After all, all kinds of things are said about a lot of famous authors.

[j. d. worthington]

I've got to admit that I find such tactics alarming. In what way is this different or better than any other form of arbitrary censorship? How does it differ from, say, the fundamentalists who were going around to the libraries here and removing or defacing books of fairy tales because of artwork they found "offensive" (such artwork including pieces by Arthur Rackham, for example)? In the end, it comes down to one person making a decision for others what they have the right to have access to or not, doesn't it?

[the smiling weirwood]

It wasn't like the books were destroyed. All books that leave the collection at my library are sold on the nickel shelf or given away. So its not like censorship. The shelf space was used to enlarge the collection of foreign writers, so I like to think it was a positive change.

In older libraries the practice or removing a selection to make room for new stuff is fairly common because shelf space is a very limited commodity. I just sped the natural process along.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by the smiling weirwood

It wasn't like the books were destroyed. All books that leave the collection at my library are sold on the nickel shelf or given away. So its not like censorship. The shelf space was used to enlarge the collection of foreign writers, so I like to think it was a positive change.

In older libraries the practice or removing a selection to make room for new stuff is fairly common because shelf space is a very limited commodity. I just sped the natural process along.

Yes, but those are generally removed because they don't get checked out, or have had replacements ordered, not because of someone's dislike of a particular writer or their work. My point is that by doing so, it does remove the availability of material for those who may want to read it, while the work still has a fair amount of viability (at least, as far as popular interest is concerned). That is a form of censorship: i.e., "deleting or suppressing as objectionable".

[The Shining Enigma]

I don't know whether Terry Goodkind simply lacks charisma, is overly arrogant, or simply has admirably single-mindedness.

It is certainly that, - a case of true moral clarity prevailing over the lesser instincts typical of humankind; he has come to understand himself, and therefore can identify the more positive aims.

[the_faery_queen]

actually goodkind is someone i don't think should be on library shelves. libaries are meant to be for everyone, they're community places. they should have books that appeal to everyone, or, that help a miniority of people (say gays, or religous people or whatnot) i don't think fantasy that is filled with rape and misogny should be there. kids can pick it up (yes they can in bookshops as well) and it's certainly not something that i consider to be a community type book. i volanteered at a library for a while, it being a community centre, for the whole community, was really important. i don't think goodkind is. fantasy is a minority genre anyway, and i think that in a place like a library, whcih has to appeal to the community, it shouldn't be offensive. and i find goodkind offensive!

and i know, some people may find gays, or people of other faiths offensive, but books on that tend to be supportive or fact based. i don't think fiction, that's offensive, and doesn't have a historial standpoint going for it, should be in a community library. *shrug*

i don't have a problem with censorship to be honest. because i think there is a time and place for everything, and goodkind isn't what i would consider suitable for a mass community appeal. to me, the man promotes misogny and rape. he glamourises it. i don't want to see that in my library.

and i know, there are some books, some will say mein kamp, or some other books that may promote racism, or be about racism and so on. but i think if they're historical, if oyu can learn about a culture, or religon, or historical viewpoint from them, then they're ok, ficitional or otherwise. goodkind doesn't have that going for his books. maybe uif he had written them in a time, or place, where abuse of women was ok, and his book was a reflection of that. OR he had written them to show up abuse of women, then ok. they'd have a place. but he didn't. and he doesn't. so they don't

in my opinion at least. community places shouldn't have stuff that deliberatly insults and puts down half the population and has no historial or social benefit. that's what i think, at least.