Yeah, that was actually a joke about the prior poster having given up the series before that I point. I didn't even recall which one was book six when I wrote that.

That's your opinion. Without having the same values and worldview as he, can you honestly claim that it is impossible that it all works in his head?I find it far more likely that we are simply not getting where he his coming from, that we lack the piece that makes it all fit together. Like trying to understand why religious people do things without taking God into the equation. There is probably some essential element of objectivism that they all take for granted which governs the whys and wherefores of his magic.


Are you out of your mind? "It's not similar enough to be coincidence, therefore it has to be a cleverly disguised rip-off!" Seriously! Think about what you are saying! It doesn't hurt his case when you come out and go all conspiracy theory on him like this. And the level of similarity of the Seanchan to the Imperial Order is what I said above - it is simply a powerful foreign invader. At that very vague level of similarity, the inspiration or source material could have come from any number of hundreds of books, up to and including histories. The Seanchan were introduced in the Great Hunt in 1990, and the Imperial Order in Stone of Tears in 1996. THE YEARS ARE THE SAME EXCEPT FOR THE LAST DIGIT! COINCIDENCE?! I THINK NOT!!!!! I entered and graduated high school and had four different jobs in the interim between those books. Lots of stuff happens in six years and your claim of chronological juxtaposition is absurd.


That explains so much.
If you're referring to the one starring his sister, I would not consider that a failure or an attempt to explore other characters. Rather it was showing a different perspective on the same characters. That book had very little to do with Jensen and was mostly about Richard, despite his absence from all but the end. And given what he seems to be trying to say about the real world in his books, he seems to be making a valid point in his ham-handed way, about how the reputation one gets from one's enemies can affect how innocent or otherwise well-disposed parties can become your enemies, courtesy of slander and the belittlement of hateful or envious lesser men. For Goodkind, I thought that was actually a fairly successful and clever trick.

Why? For being a hack? At least he does so in the most non-intrusive of media. It's not like other hacks such as Lady Gaga and that Glee bullshit that get slammed into your attention wherever you go. I think too many of his long-time reader/critics have become obsessed, like poking a bruise to feel the pain again, or tonguing a broken tooth, and keep reading despite knowing what they are getting into and then blaming him for "making" them endure another book of it. It's not like the TV show, for example, where you are forced to listen to the dialogue in order to enjoy the sight of Kahlan in her absurdly gratuitous costume.