And you discover *one* of the reasons why I'm not particularly taken with Goodkind, even though people recommend his books to me all the time.
You'd have to read his books to discover the others, but since I don't recommend them, why bother?
I suspect that there must be something that he does well, since most successful writers have at least one or two strengths, but it would be a chore for me to figure it out -- unless his appeal is just his politics, in which case I'm definitely not interested.
I take my art like my martinis: straight up.
I had been wondering about Goodkind myself recently. My mental label for him was "spinner of many doorstops in series," like Robert Jordan, R.A. Salvatore, David Eddings, Raymond Feist, and such-like writers, which is a group I have no interest in reading. However, some people praised him for writing Objectivist fantasy fiction, which could be good or bad, so I was curious to find a reasonably balanced critical discussion of his books. That led me to this page, a bundle of commentaries on a live chat Goodkind held with some fans; it's convinced me that I probably wouldn't like Goodkind's books, so I won't bother--I still have some Alastair Reynolds to read, after all, and I scarcely have time for that. (The commentary is generally good, but the discussion of naturalism and romanticism in the comments is poor.)
Goodkind's Rant: a rebuttal of the more preposterous utterances of this prolific author
This is the gist of the summary (which is interesting in its own right): "Terry Goodkind should be complimented for what he does well: he is very good at driving action narratives as well as drawing interesting characters with enough depth to at least make his reader emotionally invested in the outcome...The thing that characterizes Goodkind's work more than any other trait is "derivative." Everything [sic] word he has written in The Sword of Truth series is derivative of prior work. He is adding nothing to the genre; he is only borrowing. Old grouchy wizards are nothing new. Conflict between people with magic against people without is nothing new. Evil wizards, despotic emperors, and lords of the undead are nothing new as antagonists. Magic swords and quests are nothing new. Collars, learning swordplay through past memories, boundaries separating kingdoms, and evil spirits are nothing new. *Objectivism* is certainly nothing new. That Goodkind is taking these existing concepts and weaving them in to a (sometimes) interesting and compelling story is good enough to make it a bestseller but to brazenly announce that he is irrevocably changing the genre is ridiculous."
Hope that helps.
Edited By Siteowner
Thanks for the link, Adrian. It certainly is revealing, especially this statement by Goodkind:
"Why are my heroes different than the heroes of people like [the bombers on 9/11]? To answer those sorts of questions requires that I convey intellectual information.
Those are the kinds of abstract concepts I write about which are absent from fantasy, as such..." (emphasis mine)
So the man sees himself as a philosopher-novelist in the style of Ayn Rand! Goodness.
According to the reviewer on inchoatus.com: "[Goodkind] is very good at driving action narratives..."
That's curious. I checked out a book by Goodkind last year, and after two paragraphs I knew that I wouldn't finish the book (which is unusual for me). I forced myself to read the rest of the chapter, but it was tough going. I also skimmed through the other chapters, but the language didn't appear to improve.
What I saw of Goodkind was a lot of telling and very little showing. I can't imagine how he could switch out of this mode and into something that would resemble an "action narrative". I think it's more likely that this reviewer doesn't know the difference between action described and action demonstrated. (But of course, I haven't read one of Goodkind's action narratives, so I don't know.)
P.S. Adrian, I fixed your link to inchoatus.com. I had to change it to a tinyurl to make it work.
Commenting by HaloScan
