Lots of what he said was interesting.... But I couldn't believe his disdain for his own genre and how he claims to have broken all of the genre rules.

I only read the first two books of the Sword of Truth series, and I actually stopped because I thought it was too derivitive.

Warning spoilers:

In the First Wizards Rule, you have a hidden heir, a man of humble birth with great power, a wise wizard, a magical girlfriend, a quest for a macguffin, and a villian who is as mustache twirling as you can get. A very clear line between good and evil, etc, etc, etc. And in the second book, the sisters of light and dark just seemed like a rip off of Jordan Aes Sadies (sp?).

I'm not going to read the rest of the series because the characters just don't interest me anymore, but I am curious. And I know you people are well read.

• Richard and Kahlan get together.
• Something happens that takes Richard away from Kahlan
• Richard is put through some awful experience from which he learns something important.
• Richard escapes and returns to Kahlan.
  

The later books I read, or listened to (I stopped arounnd book 6 or 7) introduced more horror, torture, and sexually explicit scenes and angst. The ending trilogy of the series, which I have not yet read, reportedly further dissolves in character self-flaggelation, existentialism, and philsophical discourse.

I do not fault Mr. Goodkind (particularly as I have not read all the books in question), particularly as this seems a tendency among a number of fantasy series writers. For example, after book five of Robert Jordan's WHEEL OF TIME series, I found the digressions away from the main story and subplots and the seemingly hundreds of characters tedious and frustrating. I loved the first six books of John Norman's GOR series back in the seventies, but then his preoccupation with slavery and bondage made the series near unreadible for me. With only one main story arc point possibly presented after hundreds of pages of detailed S&M, and main character depression, one of my first novel ideas was to have a character go to Gor, find Tarl Cabot, slap him across the face, and say "Snap out of it!" . I've heard similar complaints concerning story digressions in the later GRR Martin's FIRE AND ICE novels.

While admittedly, never-ending series like the OZ books and Piers Anthony's XANTH can become tedious in their unoriginality, introducing counter-genre elements and calling it "original fantasy" alienates your established audience. I wish they would just end one series if they wish to do something that is new, if this is their desire, without destroying the integrity of the prior novels.
Or perhaps this is a way to sell more novels: bastardizing the laurels of their previous best-sellers.

I believe Terry Pratchett's DISCWORLD is an example of a series that is the exception in maintaining a recognizeable style throughout every book despite how different they may be from one another.

Respectfully,
History

But Goodkind says that he is constantly turning the genre on its head so to speak. He said something like: breaking the rules of the fantasy genre has been known to be the fastest way to kill your career, but (he says) he continually breaks all of the rules and his readers keep reading to see which rule will he break next.

Granted I've only read two of his novels, but they were just like all the other epic fantasy I've read.

I have not read Goodkind even though he does or had a TV series. So I have a question. Yo say he disdains fantasy. But other than breaking the rules what did he say that gave you that impression?

To me a writer breaking the rules isn't bad. Dean Wesley Smith has stated that a writer can break the rules once he understands them. Could be that we are talking about a different form of rules but I'm still not sure breaking them is bad. Even if the writer does things I don't want, like killing off the main characters, I just won't read it.

As to Goodkind I wonder if a rule he broke for epic fantasy is to concentrate more on the character than on the scenery. Or something along those lines.

As to rules... I think what some do isn't break the rules, but rather, flaunt their 'disobedience'. Acting out, as it were, like a child seeking attention. It works... for a while, or if the audience isn't inclined to slap 'em and yell, "Snap out of it!"

quote:

---

I have not read Goodkind even though he does or had a TV series. So I have a question. Yo say he disdains fantasy. But other than breaking the rules what did he say that gave you that impression?

---

If you are really curious, you can listen to the whole interview. There is a link to it in the "Link to an essay on Modern Fantasy" thread.

It is pretty obvious that he considers most fantasy trite, and believes his stuff is much more deeper and meaningful. He'd very much like to be more mainstream.

I just didn't understand why he was putting down other authors in his genre when his stuff was just like theirs, at least from what I read.

But it sounds like he gets more philosophical in his later novels as History pointed out. So maybe that is the big difference.

But I think there have been some very profound works in the Fantasy genre, such as Lord of the Rings.

I decided to read Blood of the Fold and was very disappointed. I doubt if I'll read anymore of Goodkind's works. I about didn't get past the first page because of his writing style. Way too tedious for my tastes. So I decided to buzz through the story by just scanning the pages. I must've skipped a good third of what Goodkind wrote and still knew exactly what was going on. I do believe he could cut a good third to half of the manuscript and still have a good story. Also, I found Richard as a ruler extremely boring. He was much more fun before he became an emperor. BOTF made me totally lose interest in the whole series, and I don't care a hoot about Richard and Kahlin (sp?) anymore.

It seems to me that all these successful fantasy authors somehow believe that they need disproportionately delve into their characters thoughts and feelings, and provide them soul-crushing personal emotional conflicts in order to have thenmselves considered real "literary" authors. The fantasy elements and external conflicts and action in their novels are no longer their interest and are relegated to a thin scaffold upon which their weighty slow-moving marrionettes blunder.

If I ever (doubtfully) become a successful author of a fantasy series, I will insist on having an editor who will have the integrity, and the balls (man or woman), to slap me and keep me from such excesses.

I’ve read transcripts of interviews with him, and the first one I honestly thought was some sort of gag. How could characters that I loved so much have come from such a closed-minded jerk who despises Fantasy? But I have an answer about why he thinks he is breaking rules. He doesn’t read Fantasy. At all. He says that he has dyslexia or some other type of LD, and that it takes him too long to read. (Has he never heard of audio books?) To me this just reinforces his disdain for Fantasy. So he's never read Tolkien or any of the others. Mind you I still like the books that I like, but wow! The only author that he professes any admiration for is Ayn Rand, and her he treats with an almost religious reverence.

My first introduction to him other than through his stories was the interview that I mentioned. As far as I can remember he came right out and said that he didn’t have much respect for Fantasy as a genre, for those who either write or read it. I don’t remember if this was before or after he was asked what he likes to read, and he explained that he finds reading difficult and therefore mostly doesn’t. He was asked if he had read Tolkien or any of the others who had laid the ground work for the genre, and he said no. When pressed and asked if he would in the future so that he would better understand his audience, his response was that he had to choose between time devoted to writing or reading and that he would choose writing.

And that way it doesn't have to come out of writing time. You can listen to audio books while driving, etc.