What do you like about Goodkind?

[meargen]

I really enjoy LOTS, but I admit I never read Goodkind's books. I did find Wizard's First Rule, and to be honest, I only skimmed bits of it. I find Goodkind too wordy and I thought it kind of turgid. I've read other writers I think are better...Bernard Cornwell, Ponnelle, Kenneth Roberts, etc., who I just think write better and would describe the story in quicker and more memorable terms. Example, I think in WIzard's, I found Kahlen kind of weepy. She's a lot stronger in the series.

I actually think the series is better than the book, and I talked to a Seeker fan at work who HATES the series, and thinks it a desecration. He also thinks the series should be more violent, like the books.

I admit that when reading Wizard's First Rule, I was really bogged down in reading several other books and writing some. That being said, I want to know what YOU like about Goodkind...his style, story, characters, etc. What draws you to his writing?

[Calayis]

I actually enoyed his writing because of his descriptiveness. I find he can be wordy at times, but I still found it difficult putting the books down.
Kahlan is a bit weepy in the first book, but in Stone of Tears you begin to see more of the woman she is...how powerful and intimidating she can be. She's weepy in the first book because of Richard. She was always hard and callous until he came and 'broke down her boundaries' thus causing her to experience emotion that she'd never experienced before; it's really a transformation for her. In the later books you see her emerge, becoming even stronger than the Kahlan in the series (trust me).

I think the book is just as good as the series. They're both great in their own right; however if you didn't enjoy his writing style too much, by all means, just enjoy the series.

One thing I didn't like about Terry's writing was in his later books he became really preachy in terms of his political views. He's an objectivist and is obviously completely against any form of social aid which sort of goes against everything I work for on a daily basis, what with being a social worker and all If you believe in what he stands for, you'd enjoy the books for that...though it's a bit hypocritical...He continuously states to fight for your own and do things for yourself yet he writes the main characters as constantly giving in to helping others as it's their 'duty'. Well, if your life is truly 'yours and yours alone' than stop fighting for others when you so clearly don't want to...anyways, that was just my side rant..sorry

Enjoy the show, enjoy the books, or enjoy both! They're both good, imo

*Edit: being somewhat of a feminist, I also enjoyed the power Kahlan represented and how women (aside from using their sexuality,,,aka, Mord'Sith) in the series like Shota as well represented power.


Of course, love the romance, too

[maleconfessor]

he isn't a good writer by any means. he reuses the same words over and over again, 'grinned' 'scowled' etc. but the series is AMAZING, and what i like about goodkind is his imagination.

[johnnyringo]

Great storyteller, great characters but yes he does get rather preachy and repetitive, especially in the second half of the SOT series.

[krichton]

There are certain things I look for in a good fantasy good book. Characters, story, magic system, world building and of course pacing. If you can manage the first 3 you already got yourself a very good book; if you manage to succeed with at least 4 much less 5 you got yourself a great fantasy novel. Say what you will about Goodkind incorporating his philosophy into later books, but he knows how to create great characters with depth, his stories are fast paced, well rounded and you have a well defined magic system and some pretty good world building as well. At least 3 of the books are garbage and I think everyone knows which ones I'm talking about, but the others are either excellent to very good. I have never found any "problems" with the writing style. I can read it perfectly without ever having to be confused at either his grammar or plotting.

Over the course of a year since I began reading these books I have heard many complaints about Goodkind's books for various reasons so it doesn't shock me that someone else would question his legitimacy so to speak. Everyone has an opinion. What I do find shocking is whenever I see ppl criticize Goodkind's work they inevitably find other examples of works they think is "better," and that's when supposedly legitimate arguments start to collapse into silly rants. Oh ppl will debate well enough and sound like they know what they're talking about, but the minute they present to you their examples of great fantasy fiction and characters you almost have to laugh out loud. Take for instance the op's insistance that LOTS is better than the books. I will for argument's sake assume they mean they're better written. That in itself is a complete joke and precisely what I'm talking about. It's like debating Will Smith's awful acting skills and then concluding your argument by saying, "now that Ashton Kutcher, HE'S an actor!"

[Richard]

I really enjoy LOTS, but I admit I never read Goodkind's books. I did find Wizard's First Rule, and to be honest, I only skimmed bits of it. I find Goodkind too wordy and I thought it kind of turgid. I've read other writers I think are better...Bernard Cornwell, Ponnelle, Kenneth Roberts, etc., who I just think write better and would describe the story in quicker and more memorable terms. Example, I think in WIzard's, I found Kahlen kind of weepy. She's a lot stronger in the series.

I find it interesting that you could come to a conclusion like this by "skimming bits" of a book. How can you describe a book as " too wordy" without reading it? Did you reach your opinions of these other writers by "skimming bits" of their books?
I am not objecting to your opinion, you are quite entitled to voice it, however I think you need to read the book first.
I hate to say this but you damage your own credibility by not having read the book.

I actually think the series is better than the book.

Again, I don't think that this is a comparison you are qualified to make

As I have said, people are entitled to have an opinion. I, for example find some of his books, one in particular, quite enjoyable, whereas others here don't like it. Thats where debate begins, from differing opinions. I believe you need, at the very least, to read the whole book first, before offering up an opinion.

[griff]

I, like others, found the later books a bit preachy, but other than that, I do not have a bad word to say about the books. The characters are all awe-inspiring, with each of them having their moments and growing so much. I even like the fact that they diverge so much in "Pillars of Creation" (at least now I do, originally reading it I was a bit confuzzled). They are my favourite series of all time.

[First Wizard]

Terry's philosophy is actually what I like best about him.

[Erin]

For me its mostly his characters, thats the thing that "captivated" me when i started reading WFR, they just drew me in and i beliaved everything they "said".
I also fell in love with the world he created altho at times some of his descriptions( mostly after WFR) were just a bit too long, but i still enjoyed them. And one more major thing i loved is the story, i apsolutely love fantasy but i did not read a lot of books from that ganre so it just "sucked me in" (note: im talking about the first three books, since i only got that far)

[meargen]

I find it interesting that you could come to a conclusion like this by "skimming bits" of a book. How can you describe a book as " too wordy" without reading it? Did you reach your opinions of these other writers by "skimming bits" of their books?
I am not objecting to your opinion, you are quite entitled to voice it, however I think you need to read the book first.
I hate to say this but you damage your own credibility by not having read the book.



Again, I don't think that this is a comparison you are qualified to make

As I have said, people are entitled to have an opinion. I, for example find some of his books, one in particular, quite enjoyable, whereas others here don't like it. Thats where debate begins, from differing opinions. I believe you need, at the very least, to read the whole book first, before offering up an opinion.

Your criticisms are valid. I read about four chapters and bits of others, so it was 'in depth' skimming, if such a thing is possible. I really would like to read WFR, but I'm bogged down in four writing projects, and will get to it. I would like to give Goodkind a chance, and I'm impressed by people who have read his works on how much they like him. I know that I've written a novel about 900 words, and it may seem daunting, but when into the characters and world, it just breezes through.

[SeekerOfKahlan]

Terry's philosophy is actually what I like best about him.

without getting too political, most of the complaints are that, in the later books he starts to get all Libertarian on everyone, which is something I can't wait for. Something I am thoroughly looking forward to reading.

I've only read WFR and and currently reading SoT. What I love about Goodkind is how captivating he is. I'm immediately hooked into the story and the characters. I love Richard, the way he thinks, the way he solves problems, the way he loves Kahlan. I love the description Goodkind gives as these things are taking place.

I find myself dreaming of the book in the morning, what I just read, and what I imagine I will be reading

[Sister Ginevra]

Can some one please explain his philosophy? I went to his site but it seemed to be broken when I was there.

[SeekerOfKahlan]

Can some one please explain his philosophy? I went to his site but it seemed to be broken when I was there.

I guess the best way to start would be with Objectivism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

and also quasi-libertarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

[Kaelyn"Amnell"1]

What I like best about Terry's writing is how he really paints a picture in your mind with the scenery and especially how the characters are feeling. It really kind of puts you in their shoes and makes you connect with them. I don't think his writing is too wordy at all. With a series like this, you kind of have to be wordy and very descriptive otherwise you won't really know the whole story. And I think his description is the best part of his writing. With all the anger and compassion and emotional depth. He is also very good at setting a clear point of view for each of the characters, which I like. I even like the vocabulary he uses sometimes because I learn new words that I use myself. I find it very inspiring.

[abaris]

I really liked the first three books - although he made a whole lot of logical mistakes, especially in WFR. As has been said, you start to care for the characters and he paints a pretty believable picture.

I started skimming only with the later books when he started to write lenghty monologues in order to transport his view of the world. But although I'm certainly no fan of the philosophy he's trying to promote, I liked the books. Maybe just because the characters were following certain codes and sticked with them which is pretty rare in the fantasy genre. It's also pretty rare, that the villains are well developed. Sometimes that well, that you develop a certain understanding for them - which is obviously contrary to Goodkind's goals, but good for the storytelling aspect.