Single-minded Terry Goodkind

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

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".

¨

Well said !


Its very wrong IMO abusing your power to remove a writer from the library just cause you dont like him or his books. Its censorship, deciding what people shouldnt read without giving the author a chance.


Its not like he is unknown. No matter how or how bad he is he deserves his shelf space.

Library books decides which authors you find and can try.

[Ground Cinnamon]

Wow, lot of interesting thoughts. I've wanted to throw mine out for a while on Goodkind.

What I like about his books, as has been mentioned, how he's anti-kant: how he basically shows how blind someone can become by "good" ideas that they have not fully thought through but have just swallowed because of their emotional apeal. And the wizards rules are great.

What I hate about him is how he goes about proving his point, ie endless and mindless torture, rape, violence, etc. He sacrifices every other aspect of his writing to that. I'm amazed he calls himself a romance writer because the romance in his books is about the most shallow thing I've ever read. He describes romance, preaching it like a dictionary, instead of writing in a way that makes the reader feel the love of characters. And I agree, about half way through the series the fantasy DIES in the books, and it just becomes books about the same old characters going through the same old torture for the same old philisophical hiarcy. I feel his books (and I kind of feel the same about Robert Jordan, and TOTALY about the few DnD books I've read) have no feel of fantasy: that feeling of sinking into a realm of myth and mistery. Instead, they are very modern people who just happen to have a very modern form of mathamaticaly calulatable magic.

Having said all that, I'm on the last book and I found myself getting goose bumps as Richard marked his JaLa team with the symbols of the Dance of Death, and still find his tying together of Life and Death in that dance a great concept.

So, inspite of all I don't like, his pomposity, crudity, and lack of poetic writing, he can still grab me.

P.S. He doesn't know what the word "like" is for!!! In his last book he writes some thing like "And the apparition vanished with a sound like a door to the underworld closing." Terry! Common! Either it IS a door to the underworld closing, or else TELL US WHAT IT IS LIKE! We know your have no poetry in your heart, but for goodness sakes TRY!!! Read a Stephen King book... maybe that will clue you in...

[Tobytwo]

Interesting points. The library issue is difficult, but I think Goodkind's stuff should be allowed to stay with two caveats: (1) he should not incite any sort of criminal act and (2) it should be classed as adult fiction.

(1). Authors may depict unpleasant and distasteful things: that's pretty much what horror is there for. If you try to limit the sort of content that is allowed onto shelves, what criteria can you use? A lot of stuff goes on in films and books that is distasteful and we could do without - the unwholesome attitude to rape in much Manga, the habit of US war films of claiming the credit for other countries' victories, for instance - these are immoral things, but I cannot see how you could rule against them unless they could be seen as inciting crime.

I doubt Goodkind goes as far as saying that violence against women is good, although it sounds as if people here don't trust his motives in depicting it. Anyhow, good critics and readers should denounce unpleasant material in books and films, as Joss Whedon recently did about misogyny in horror films, which will result in less sales for dubious authors. If no-one buys it, it doesn't survive.

(2). I freely accept the potential problem here. As a child I was shocked to find swear words in a William Gibson novel: there used to be a sort of presumption that SFF was exciting and sometimes violent, but not in a very adult way. I would refer people to the debate about Starship Troopers here (Starship Troopers: The PITFCS Debate), where SF writers wondered whether its glorification of war made it appropriate for children to read. The only thing I can think of right now is that the SF section should stay on the opposite side of the library to the children's books.

[the smiling weirwood]

The thing is, something had to go to make room for the changing collection and I made sure it was those books. The change had to come from adult fiction, and honestly they were some of the least checked out books. There were others who had fewer check-outs, but his books were fatter.

And honestly, I don't care.

[The Shining Enigma]

He doesn't know what the word "like" is for!!!

It appears, my friend, that neither would you.

The masterful Goodkind inscribes with a startling conviction, relentless in his determination to release truth into his prose with such force that his readers will in turn receive a small part of that enlightenment.

He is in accordance with Truth.

[Sar]

A lot of really interesting stuff here.

I think it all comes down to the fact that Goodkind is a man who uses storytelling to present ideas. It is going to be interpreted in all sorts of ways (obviously). That is the beauty of any kind of art, be it literature, painting, architecture, or whatever. Art evokes human emotion, and Goodkind has accomplished this.

Perhaps we should focus internally more than externally. If Goodkind's work inspires you to be better, or enhances your morale sense, then good. If you are made uncomfortable or are offended by it, then don't read it. I can understand both sides.

Extremes are usually bad. Dissmissing Goodkind's work because he seems arrogant, or worshipping him just because you love his books; either way, the art is destroyed and we might be missing something that could be beneficial to us personally.

[icundell]

Originally Posted by The Shining Enigma

It appears, my friend, that neither would you.

The masterful Goodkind inscribes with a startling conviction, relentless in his determination to release truth into his prose with such force that his readers will in turn receive a small part of that enlightenment.

He is in accordance with Truth.

OK Terry. You can stop now.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by the smiling weirwood

The thing is, something had to go to make room for the changing collection and I made sure it was those books. The change had to come from adult fiction, and honestly they were some of the least checked out books. There were others who had fewer check-outs, but his books were fatter.

And honestly, I don't care.

What has that his books are fatter to do with anything



Im just glad this could never happen here. No one person has this kind of power to remove books just cause he doesnt like the author......

[nixie]

Im just glad this could never would happen here. No one person has this kind of power to remove books just cause he doesnt like the author......

Couldn't agree more

[the smiling weirwood]

It has to do the physical allocation of shelf space. There is a limited amount of shelf space to be had, and yet new books are being written all the time. Thus, some books must be removed in order for the new ones.

[Tobytwo]

This thread seems to be about 4 things:

1) Is Terry Goodkind an arrogant git?
2) Are his books any good?
3) Are his books morally bad?
4) Should they be in the library?

[chopper]

Originally Posted by Tobytwo

This thread seems to be about 4 things:

1) Is Terry Goodkind an arrogant git?
2) Are his books any good?
3) Are his books morally bad?
4) Should they be in the library?

i'm paraphrasing here, i'm afraid, but i'll defend to the death his right to publish codswallop & twaddle.

[the smiling weirwood]

Some people seem to be under the impression I have somehow censored his material in my local library. Allow me to clarify.

My mother needed to recover shelf space for new material in the collection. This entails removing older books. I suggested she get rid of Terry Goodkind's books among others towards this end. This was deemed acceptable despite their relative novelty because they hadn't been checked out very often.

Claro?

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by the smiling weirwood

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.

Originally Posted by the smiling weirwood

Some people seem to be under the impression I have somehow censored his material in my local library. Allow me to clarify.

My mother needed to recover shelf space for new material in the collection. This entails removing older books. I suggested she get rid of Terry Goodkind's books among others towards this end. This was deemed acceptable despite their relative novelty because they hadn't been checked out very often.

Claro?

I think that if you look at the original post and compare it with this one, it's pretty obvious how such an impression would be gained -- the first one blatantly states (or seems to, though this may be hyperbole) that such is the case. In a forum full of heavy readers and writers, that's bound to get backs up, given the history of such actions.

If, on the other hand, it was a matter of a decision being already made to remove books which were not being checked out, and when consulted you made a suggestion, that puts things in a rather different light, and I hereby apologize if I seemed to come on too harshly.

As for Goodkind's "right to" etc.... *wince* I must agree with that one, though I really dislike doing so; especially as there are so many better books out there that have trouble finding an audience; but defending his freedom of speech is also defending theirs; and censoring his books because one finds them distasteful (or outright vile) is, in the final analysis, no better than someone doing the same with books you or I -- for example -- would find uplifting, but which they would find objectionable: Jurgen, Ulysses, Naked Lunch, Catcher in the Rye, Huckleberry Finn, Frankenstein, Cat's Cradle, Bug Jack Barron, Camp Concentration, The Atrocity Exhibition, Fahrenheit 451....

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by the smiling weirwood

Some people seem to be under the impression I have somehow censored his material in my local library. Allow me to clarify.

My mother needed to recover shelf space for new material in the collection. This entails removing older books. I suggested she get rid of Terry Goodkind's books among others towards this end. This was deemed acceptable despite their relative novelty because they hadn't been checked out very often.

Claro?

I doubt Goodkind books are the least checkout in hole library. If it is then removing is fine. Its a somewhat famous fantasy and those are always popular no matter qaulity so i doubt very much its the least wanted book of the library.

Otherwise removing it despite people actually read it is censorship no matter how you put it.