Wizard's First Rule discussion

Scassonio wrote: "I read a few enthusiastic reviews of Terry Goodkind's "Wizard First Rule" so, given that I'm a sucker for fantasy, I gave it a go and... it wasn't so good, actually I think it's an utter piece of j..."

I liked the BDSM part.

I think TG writes a pretty epic fantasy that was quite refreshing when it first came out. I personally felt like the first 2 books mirrored the first 2 books of Wheel Of Time series and stopped reading it. I know a few people who just love this series though! I guess later his writing really improves. He also has/had a TV series based on his books called Legend of the Seeker, which likely adds to the popularity of his books.

Scassonio wrote: "Apparently I gave up before that bit. "
Well, that was the high-point of the book, if you ask me.

I don't think it's a particulary good book, but I do think that it is significantly better than books by authors such as R.A. Salvatore, Ed Greenwood, Richard A. Knaak and so on. You know the type.

Besides the bad prose and ridiculous dialogue, you have Goodkind's far-right political/philosophical views. And he likes to repeatedly shove his insane and simplistic worldview in our face.

Yes, but did Céline ruin his books by having his main characters make nazi speeches? No, he didn't.

I felt like the first couple of books were pretty good (except for the hideous BDSM stuff, sorry Zoran), but the further the books went the more it was just his simplistic Ayn Rand shit being spouted ad nauseum.

Beverly wrote: "sorry Zoran"

No problem, I'll live ;-)

Scassonio wrote: "I read a few enthusiastic reviews of Terry Goodkind's "Wizard First Rule" so, given that I'm a sucker for fantasy, I gave it a go and... it wasn't so good, actually I think it's an utter piece of j..."
I read it a couple years ago and didn't like it either. Turns out TG is just an objectivist (follower of Ayn Rand - not that there's anything wrong with that) trying to inject his personal philosophy into some poor unsuspecting fictional characters.

I read these books a while ago and I don't remember any right wing ideology, I do remember enjoying the books extensively. If your reading a book and seeing a nazi behind every tree maybe your not reading it right. Granted the stories were pretty simplistic and the character development may have been a bit shallow but still overall enjoyable. Besides who cares what an authors politcal opinion is your reading a book for the story not to develope your political viewpoint. You want that, put the book down and watch TV, I'm sure you can get an earfull on the boobtube. :-)

David wrote: "I read these books a while ago and I don't remember any right wing ideology, I do remember enjoying the books extensively. If your reading a book and seeing a nazi behind every tree maybe your not..."

I've heard that in later books the main character kills a bunch of pacifists, because they were blocking his way.

Geeze! Here is a quote from Hitler:

We are Socialists, we are enemies of the capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." -- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) German Nazi Dictator; May 1 1927

Okay ...got it?

That is NOT Ayn Rand or Terry Goodkind. Say what you will about style or political views but academia and hollywood and the media have told BIG WHOPPERS about Hitler. He was a man of Left as was his buddy Mussolini. So comparing Goodkind to a Nazi is wrong because "Nazi" is short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party and Terry Goodkind's ideology is directly opposed to socialism. The whole book, preachy as it was, Faith of the Fallen, was a refutiation of the Hitler quote above.

Sorry, I just get frustrated when I see this common error regarding Hitler. He was NOT a right winger. He was a peddler of ideologies but his core was left wing, socialism.

I don't remember that scene but it wouldn't surprise me. The main character was going through a lot of changes and had suffered a lot at the hands of some of the different groups that he was up against. I do remember getting a bit annoyed each time the mother confessor got captured the bad guys were planning on raping her. If I'm not mistaken this was one of the main reasons I stopped reading them and never finished the end book or books. I don't remember which book I finished with though.

Allen wrote: "Sorry, I just get frustrated when I see this common error regarding Hitler. He was NOT a right winger. He was a peddler of ideologies..."

Sorry, Hitler was an opportunist who started out with left-wing propaganda when socialism was very popular in Europe, but his approach to governance pulled as much from the 'right' as from the 'left'.

If you're going to get frustrated with history and political ideology being misrepresented, it does not help to then misrepresent history and politics by cherry-picking an early quote from 1927 when Hitler was pandering to socialism. You ignore the rest of his political career, the majority of which involved a lot of typically traditional 'right' wing, including corporate croneyism/classism, nationalism, racism, anti-democracy and a strong state.

Here is something called a political compass for anyone confused by the political terminology of 'left' and 'right' -- which is misleading by being inadequate as it leaves out the other political aspects of 'authoritarian' and 'libertarian'.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analy...

Hitler was a populist whose politics and policies pulled from both the 'right' and 'left' side of the traditional political spectrum, but he was an authoritarian more than anything else.


"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)


PS. Mike Godwin's meme-experiment is the reason right-wing revisionists can now tell BIG WHOPPERS about Hitler while slowly dragging the political goalposts to the right and further into authoritarian territory.

Hitler was NOT a right winger. He was also NOT a left winger. He was an opportunist and his core was fascism.

Otherwise, Goodkind's books were a bit preachy but a lot of fun.

I like all the stupid criticisms in this thread. I will share my thoughts. The book wasn't good, I got bored half way through and didn't care to finish it. Simple as that, it lost my attention.

Mitch wrote: "I like all the stupid criticisms in this thread. I will share my thoughts. The book wasn't good, I got bored half way through and didn't care to finish it. Simple as that, it lost my attention."

Yet you gave it 5 stars? Please explain?

I've read the first seven of these, and really they're nothing very special. Like Zoran, I'm a big fan of the Mord-Sith ("the BDSM thing"). But then again, the OP never got that far into the book... As for Goodkind's philosophy, it's the tripe one has to wade through for the occasional fun kernels.

Some commentators failed at reading comprehension! Céline and his nazism were used as an analogy for Goodkind's "randism". A-na-lo-gy. Goodkind is still a lunatic right-wing wacko, though.

It is written in a simple style, ala David Eddings which made for very easy reading if it wasnt a particularly enjoyable book. I believe if I had ready this book when I was in my early early teens, say 11 or 12, I would have liked it way more.

I do not get the political diatrabe others mentioned above. The characters were very flat to me and they didnt seem to have any opinions other than "I must defeat the dark lord and save the word" versus "I must hold onto my power in order to stop chaos from taking over the world".

I couldn't get past the first hundred and fifty pages this book was so bad.

Zoran wrote: "Mitch wrote: "I like all the stupid criticisms in this thread. I will share my thoughts. The book wasn't good, I got bored half way through and didn't care to finish it. Simple as that, it lost my ..."

Oh...I uh... rated it before stopping. :( I assumed I'd like it. :( I'll fix that.

Look at it another way. Wizard's First Rule was his 1st publication, ever. He was a woodworker most of his life. I know a lot of people wouldn't like his style/characters/philosophy/preaching. But you have to admit its a good story, for those that read it, though some may think the writing/dialogue may be poor at times. Myself. I loved the series...and the mord-sith in red leather.

But. I honestly believe some part of the author "Hates" women. And at times it feels like your reading Super Mario. Princess kidnapped, he wins only to discover shes in another castle, etc...and wash rinse repeat in other books.

I've been reading this genre for more than 40 years. I think it's fair to say that a large part of it is mediocre--often formulaic, and in dire need of better editing. A few rise above it, someone like Gene Wolfe, for example. I would place Goodkind squarely in the middle of the pack. His stuff is still formulaic, still over-long, but I agree that he is a better storyteller than many.

I read the first 6 books of the series (about 10 years ago) before i got tired of it. I doubt i'd have the patience to read it for the first time now. It was average, not awful, i thought. I got tired of the series because i thought it was a little too...breathless. There's only so many epic stories you can tell, in more or less the same way and with the same characters, before it gets a little old. I suppose it's worth adding that i wasn't watching TV at all when i read these, so this was kind of my substitute for "lets watch this, there's nothing else on."

I read the series many years ago and decided to reread it. Got through the first two books. Too much preaching/explanations of governments, etc. I skipped over most of that. And far too long a wait for Richard and his fiance to get married. I don't care about how "original" his plot is, there are millions of similar plots in Fantasy. I did like his character development. And the plot was interesting. That's what got me through the first two books.

I find it interesting that expositions on personal responsibility and work ethic are somehow "Nazi speeches."

Personally, I liked how Goodkind didn't treat his audience as teenagers. He injected some adult subject matter into his series, and didn't shy away from the grisly details.

Bill wrote: "I find it interesting that expositions on personal responsibility and work ethic are somehow "Nazi speeches."

Personally, I liked how Goodkind didn't treat his audience as teenagers. He injected s..."

I don't mind a little speechifying, but he went on and on about it--ad nauseum was appropriate. It wasn't "exposition" at that point, but preaching/inculcation/ propaganda. Somewhere along the way it stopped being interesting and became terribly boring drivel.

Troy wrote: " Somewhere along the way it stopped being interesting and became terribly boring drivel."

I must be immune to stuff like that, because I didn't catch a lot of the propagandizing.

Then again, I did read the entire Left Behind series in a week and a half, so I may have burned out the part that recognizes that sort of thing.

ahh, yes. The high art of political banter and brining Nazism into the bit.

The book does some thing well and does other things terrible.

Cons: Dialogue is a disaster.
- Characters are your standard tired fantasy troupes.
- The moral and ethics are so convoluted that they tend to collapse on themselves.

Pros:
-The book is well paced with decent mix of action and adventure.
-The book is able to evoke serious emotion out of its reader. Pain, hopelessness, accomplishment, hate, . You name it, it probably has it.


I read it but thought it was average. I think it is popular because it is such a cookie cutter example of fantasy that it just feels familiar to readers. I don't want to make enemies, but fantasy and sci fi readers tend to have weird standards and the "un-fallible hero" is something that a large amount of fans seem to be able consume over and over. Salvatore, Goodkind, and others basically write the same story. "A hero who is against all odds, starts to question his actions, then he find a way to rationilize his actions, gains strength and wins the day HOORAY!!!" Fantasy in it's simplest form.

In fairness to sci fi/fantasy, they do say that all of fiction can be classified into one of two meta-narratives: Hero-takes-a-journey and Stranger-comes-to-town.

I guess the line between "Literature" and "Tripe" is how well you dress up the same meta-narrative :)

I find the debate about Goodkind's politics to be fascinating, and it sort of mirrors a debate I've been having with my friends lately. The question is, "Do you need to identify with an artist's philosophies in order to enjoy their art?" While almost all of my friends have initially said "No", they all have a somewhat different take on the topic, which I found most interesting.

I myself identify as being on the left end of the political spectrum. However, I have truly enjoyed the works of a number of right-wing authors, Orson Scott Card and Robert A. Heinlein, to name a couple. To a discerning reader, their politics are evident in their works(as are most author's), and yet that didn't bother me, as I thought that they pulled it off in a skillful manner in the books I read.

Terry Goodkind, on the other hand, annoyed me greatly. He seemed to be less interested in telling his story than in inserting his ideological views into the narrative, although it was perhaps the clumsiness of his attempt that bothered me so much. I should add that I read this book years ago, when I was more of a centrist. I never read any of his other novels, but I'm told it actually got WORSE after this one.

I can appreciate a book even if I disagree with its' message, but not if the book sucks.

Sheena Rose wrote: "I think TG writes a pretty epic fantasy that was quite refreshing when it first came out. I personally felt like the first 2 books mirrored the first 2 books of Wheel Of Time series and stopped rea..."

I read quite a few of them and found them to be fairly entertaining and easy to burn through, I ended up stopping though as I got more and more frustrated with the main characters who never seemed to learn anything and made the same mistakes over and over again... so I think maybe the writing stayed the same (maybe a little TOO the same)

It amazes me that so many people took time to put down the Sword of Truth series. It must have moved them in some fashion, or they have enormous wads of free time to fill.
I suspect that most of the critiques were motivated by TG's conservative philosophy. Most liberals have a difficult time with articulate conservatives, preferring the southern hick stereotype. If the books pandered to liberal values, they'd be happier.
I loved the series. Far more gripping and original than Wheel of Time.

Nathan wrote: "Most liberals have a difficult time with articulate conservatives..."

Lol--the critic of stereotypes, stereotypes in turn :)

Terry Goodkind bothers me. The first book was certainly laborious until the Mord-Sith became involved. Then, it seemed like every book afterward was a showcase for the protagonist getting captured in a different way. I don't know why I kept reading, I really don't. I think the Mord-Sith idea hooked me. I truly enjoyed the books "Soul of the Fire" and "Faith of the Fallen," but after that, the writing seemed... worse. Or maybe I grew up. No intention of reading them again, although I have fond memories of reading them when I was a kiddie.

Scassonio wrote: "The thing with TG is that he lacks talent."

Read Twilight, or 50 Shades of Grey, then come back and say that. I bet your perspective changes very quickly. ;)

I made it through the first couple of books in the series before growing tired of Richard as a protagonist and the deus ex machina of the plot devices. Despite my general lack of enthusiasm for the series, I will credit Goodkind for coming up with the Confessors. I thought this was a pretty cool twist on the sorceror-woman trope and kept me interested longer than I would have been, otherwise.

I was a lot more unequivocally "down" on both Goodkind and Jordan when I was younger (and I knew it all, of course). Age and experience have taught me that sometimes it's not the book that's right or wrong, but the circumstances. I may pick up the series again in a few years and really like it. You never know.

I read the majority of the series and liked most of them... until it became obvious the story was no longer ABOUT the story. Fantasy novels shouldn't be about politics, thats not why I read them. Just sayin.

In one of the two books that I read (can't believe I made it that far!) Terry Goodkind wrote: Richard smiled, Kaylen smiled, Zed smiled..... which is only the tip of a massive and vacuous iceberg. I picked up these books after watching Legend of the Seeker and was disappointed to get to know the real Richard Sypher, who is grandiose, a pompous windbag (no doubt an inadvertent reflection of Goodkind his own self) & brought to mind such dated, barrel chested heroes as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chuck Norris and that other washed up cheese-ball with the pony tail...can't think of his name. I sort of liked Zed, but aside from a loud mouth and a bunch of nobodies, he was the only decent character I could find.

I have read the whole series twice ( crazy I know;-) ),but then again I am not very Sophisticated reader. I have to admit I had hard time with WFR first time reading, but only up to page 100 or so, then with Pillars of Creation and Chainfire. But mostly I love the books.
I read fiction for fun, I dont understand what more people expect from this kind of books. I dont care about Terry implementing his political view into the books, what bothers me more is, that what he is describing, I can actually see it in some ways in my life, in our reality, which is kind of scary. I wish we had someone in here that would take care of the problem :-)
And also, if anybody is worried that series is only about getting Richard and Kahlan together, it is not.
Like it was mentioned before, the books evoke many emotions, and that is what I found reading the series and the thing I love about them.

Belive me, the "first rule" is the best one in the series. Others are even worse.

If trashing Goodkind is something you would enjoy, google "Lemmings of Discord" or visit westeros.org. That is all.

Goodkind parodies here: http://sandstormreviews.blogspot.ca/2...

I don't read traditional fantasy, frankly I find the books either to be based on a D&D or Tolkien style world with little variation. Orcs, Ogres and Trolls are ugly, dumb and evil. Humans are the good guys, and everyone and everything has a history. I found Goodkinds book refreshing in that Zed isn't introduced as a wizard. The Confessor and the Great War of Wizards is a new spin on the traditional Great War where good fights bad. And the fact that the Confessors and assorted others are created creatures isn't something in most fantasy books. Yeah the plot, farm boy, forest guide, whatever, has to save a world under seige from a dark wizard has been done to death. But so has most other fantasy, romance, mystery, etc. we don't read stories where the guy doesn't get the girl, the dark wizard enslaves the world, and nobody dies. It's about the subtle differences the new twists on the same old plot that make an author unique or not. It's cool when you have someone that goes against type and tradition, but it rarely happens. I liked Wizards first rule because of the pacing, something was always happening the characters didn't really sit around and talk for the most part. And because of the lack of history, I didn't have to read about the history of the Rahls or the Midlands or anything else before it dropped me in the story. It's a fantasy story with a traditional plot, honestly I can identify the prophesied hero, his girl, and his wizard mentor all on my own without having to know there once was a Great Wizard world that divided the world into three kingdoms. Instead, Goodkind played need to know which more fantasy authors should do.

Stephanie wrote: "I don't read traditional fantasy, frankly I find the books either to be based on a D&D or Tolkien style world with little variation."

I hear what you're saying--I've even argued that most fantasy is formulaic in this very thread. But there are some excellent departures. I'm thinking of Stephen R. Donaldson's Lord Foul's Bane books, Roger Zelazny's Amber books, and Michael Moorcock's Elric and End of Time stories, among others: Wheat and chaff for the most part.

Nothing is more metal than Slayer!

I thought at the time I was reading it, that it wasn't that bad. I stay with my oppinion. Altough there are much better writers.

Didn't really mind the preachiness, although I couldn't get past book 4 or 5 (don't quite remember).

All in all a nice, "put youre thinking off" read!

I was originally a fan, enjoyed the first two a lot, started to get a little restless with the preachiness that exhibited itself around books 3 and 4. My only objection with that issue (besides that the preachiness absolutely took over the books) is that it was woefully inconsistent with Richard's character from book one. In book one, he has trouble killing even one person, he suffers for that act. It was part of his character and the mechanism of the sword of truth. Then, later, he cuts wide swaths of people in his way and feels no effect. Didn't make sense at all.

But my BIGGEST problem with every Sword of Truth book is that nearly all end with Deus ex machina of something that was not evident earlier in the book. Or ruby slippers, whatever analogy works best. Because at the end it is revealed "Oh, Richard, you could fix this all along because you're a WARRIOR wizard instead of a normal wizard. You could always fix this."

Its really weird how people either really liked or really loathed the book , there does not seem to be any review that is intermediate ...

Well honestly , I enjoyed the book , and after reading some reviews I feel kind of guilty . I dont completely agree with the plot , but I enjoyed the dialogue which seems to be the thing reviewers critisize the most !!

Lubna wrote: "Its really weird how people either really liked or really loathed the book , there does not seem to be any review that is intermediate ...

Well honestly , I enjoyed the book , and after reading s..."

it is ok to let reviews determine whether to buy or borrow a book, but you should never let the impression of other supercede your own impression after reading a book. If you enjoyed it, great! (this goes for any book). We all have differing tastes. Only YOU know what you enjoy.
I have a coworker whom I use as a reverse barometer. If they LOVE a movie or book, I know I'll hate it, and vice versa.

There's a fantasy book that I flat out enjoy I find it exciting and well written, but it has a lot of 1 star reviews that ding it for multiple POVs, which is PRECISELY why I like it (since its done well).

Life is short, enjoy what you will, the rest of us be damned.