The Sword of Truth Series (AKA RaistlinxTheMan luvluv)

[The Man]

One of these days I'm gonna find something ty that you like anyway, and I will mock you unmerciful.

Sword of Truth is pretty smurfing ty. Not as ty as Twilight but it's close.

[Shlup]

OOC:	Aw man, why did you have to say that? I've been trying so hard to like it.

[The Man]

OOC:

Because it is. Terry Goodkind is a poor man's Ayn Rand, who in turn is a poor man's Friedrich Nietzsche. The "philosophy" is awful and the writing isn't much better, and the violence is often just played for shock value. The worst thing about the series though is the way Goodkind gallivants about in interviews pretending to be a writer of serious fiction. It demeans fantasy writers who actually tackle serious themes. He even claims not to be a writer of fantasy. Dude there's smurfing dragons and wizards in your books, it's fantasy okay?

[Shlup]

OOC:	Yeah, my Legend of the Seeker DVDs have an interview with him and I could only watch half of it before I was crushed under the weight of his unpleasantness as a human being.

[The Man]

OOC:

Wait until you get to the point where he takes after Rand and starts including hundreds of pages of preaching in each book. WesLY told me Faith of the Fallen was better than the early novels so I tried it after getting disgusted with WFR, and it was worse. Then again I guess someone who actually liked John Galt's speech would probably enjoy that, but for the rest of us who understand restraint it's just ludicrous, especially since what passes for "philosophy" in his books is logically atrocious.

[Shlup]

OOC:	I just wanted to read more about Kahlan's boobies, but book Kahlan appears to be made of fail.

[The Man]

OOC:

If he just kept to writing about sex, violence and magic I guess the series would probably be pretty decent for what it is. He has to throw in all that ridiculous boneheaded 'philosophy' and really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.ning of liberals and socialists though, all while taking himself far too seriously. The result is pretty dumb.

[Raistlin]

OOC:	Sword of Truth is pretty smurfing ty.

OOC:

This from the person who drooled over Wheel of Time? No, Sword of Truth is not a good example of writing. I am critical of Goodkind's writing ability (though some of the first 7 books were done well), and consistently condemn the last four books of the series as extremely poorly done and really ruined the story. That being said, he does have a gift for creating endearing characters that make me give a damn about what happens. Overall, the first 7 books are worthwhile reads that are better than most of the other stuff out there. Faith of the Fallen does parrot a lot of Rand's philosophy, but beyond that it is one of two examples in the series of being very well written (Pillar of Creation, the following book which nobody liked because Richard and Kahlan weren't in 90% of it, would be the other). Nicci's backstory was very well done, though her past was retconned some. Of course Goodkind was heavily influenced by Rand, and obviously someone from the opposite ideological spectrum would not be as appreciative of his books. Though all the name-calling and dismissing is nice, not everyone thinks like you do (thankfully). And Shlup is definitely much closer to my ideological positions than yours, at least when it comes to politics. That being said, Goodkind is bat insane as a person. Really, would absolutely never want to talk with him. "Unpleasant" is an understatement. EDIT: Shlup: there is way more sex stuff in the books. It actually is creepy and graphic at various points (Temple of the Winds is downright disturbing at times).

[The Man]

OOC:

dude that was like seven years ago. My tastes have matured a lot since then. Jordan's writing leaves a lot to be desired to say the least (I'm not sure I'd even put him in the top 50% of fantasy writers I've read), though I'm still going to finish the series and still like it more than Goodkind's because he doesn't try to put ridiculous really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. characters in his books. I don't mind that Goodkind tries to advance an ideological argument that I disagree with; what I do mind is that he does so without ever giving the other side even remotely close to a fair hearing. (For an example of a writer who can write from a right-wing standpoint while giving his ideological opponents a fair hearing I'd recommend Dostoevsky, for example; I hear Chesterton is also quite good with this, though I've yet to read him myself). All his characters on the left either hold logically absurd views or demonstrate mediocrity through and through. This is the same flaw that mars Rand's work as literature as well; the only thing that elevates her work above Goodkind's is that she's significantly better with language. Neither writer gives their ideological opponents a fair hearing, just so they can pat themselves on the back and say they've "won" the argument. Well yeah, but it wasn't much of an argument. Luckily, most people recognise such sophistry for what it is and, if they enjoy Sword of Truth at all, they don't enjoy it for its "political" content.

[Shlup]

OOC:	EDIT: Shlup: there is way more sex stuff in the books. It actually is creepy and graphic at various points (Temple of the Winds is downright disturbing at times).

OOC:

Woo hoo!

[Raistlin]

I don't mind that Goodkind tries to advance an ideological argument; what I do mind is that he does so without ever giving the other side even remotely close to a fair hearing.

Seriously? That doesn't even make any sense. If he doesn't agree with it, why would he argue for it in his books? And the Order is an allegory of communism, not any and all self-described liberals.

And that's what it is: allegory. I suppose Arthur Miller was equally incompetent for creating a metaphor of the Red Scare? Just because it's metaphor and hyperbole does not mean it's useless -- that's the entire point of it. This seems to be just another case of "it's terrible because I don't agree with it." Boo hoo.

[The Man]

OOC:

Why would he argue for it? So he can demonstrate to anyone who actually considers both sides of an argument that his side of the argument is superior. An unbiased observer who reads the work and notices the lack of arguments for the other side will be forced to conclude, "Holy , there are over six thousand pages in this series and not one of them presents a reasonable argument for anything to the economic left of Milton Friedman." The logical next step from that will be that the fiction is a cheap piece of political propaganda that does not accurately model the real world and thus has very little value as fiction. If Goodkind is incapable of demonstrating the superiority of his argument to unbiased observers by giving fair hearing to more than one side of said argument, then an unbiased observer is likely to conclude that his argument must not be very strong. A proper fantasy allegory ought to mimic the complexity of the real world if it is to appeal to anyone other than partisans. (Though, to be fair, this extends beyond fantasy; it's the same reason Atlas Shrugged has little literary value as anything other than a piece of propaganda. Not that the left is immune - to name but one example, Upton Sinclair's work often had the same flaws. Then again, the longer a work is, the more imperative it has to model the complexity of the real world. Sinclair didn't write thousand-page doorstops, much less ten-volume fantasy series, so he had much less room in which to address his opponents' stances. Goodkind and Rand wrote for thousands of pages and still didn't come anywhere near to addressing their opponents' actual arguments). One should note that my favourite authors are typically postmodernists, precisely because their fiction does accurately represent the complexity of the real world. Goodkind has no subtlety. Because of this, I find his fiction to be crap. The fact that I disagree with him ideologically just adds to my distaste for his fiction, but even if he were on my side I'd recommend that people avoid his works simply because they do such a poor job of addressing the opposite side.

[NorthernChaosGod]

What. The. smurf.

Are you guys serious?

[The Man]

yes

[Raistlin]

There's nothing to argue against until there's something other than the argument that's inevitable brought up when there's a position or belief argued that someone doesn't like: "he doesn't argue both sides" (similar to the pro-Intelligent Design argument). If he's wrong, he's wrong -- but he's not wrong simply because he doesn't actively try to justify the opposing side (which would be kind of pointless -- he obviously believes he's right by virtue of the fact he believes it). And I will say I think Goodkind is wrong plenty. As I said: bat insane.

Though I guess I can say: it's a fantasy series, not a philosophical treatise. Yet again: it's an allegory. See my comment on Arthur Miller. There is more to get out of it than the philosophy, anyway. The fact that you get so worked up about it tells more about you than about the series.

Btw, Shlup is apparently keeping herself busy with all the OOC tags. xD