View original postAnd I don't just mean in the sense I hate to say that about anyone with double-digit books. I sometimes feel he gets an unfair wrap. His prose sucks, but that describes at least half of the well known SF/F writers and the ones who actually have good prose tend to have English degrees like Zelazny or Tolkien and since I like Hard SF I'll take a scientist writing bad prose but good imagery and solid concept over good prose. Its not that he's an arrogant prick, that also describes at least half the well known SF/F writers. His imagery is way to heavy on the sex and violence crap but he's practically G-rated compared to GRRM or Anne Rice. There's the whole ranting about his politics/philosophy thing but there are a fair few authors just as ham-fisted and whole truckloads that do it just as much, and prove their points in just as contrived a fashion but just cover it better.
And I don't know if any other author is
quite as repetitive, both in terms of endlessly rehashing the objectivist preaching and in terms of summarizing the plot of earlier books in every single book for those readers who suffer from acute amnesia (or didn't bother with the earlier books).
I think the preaching and repetitiveness keeps people from noticing (or remembering) some of the strengths that he does have as a writer - Wizard's First Rule was, as you noted, actually quite good as an epic fantasy novel, and had some good ideas (though also some horrible clichés), while Faith of the Fallen has a superb opening line and some really rather impressive propagandistic writing (unfortunately it also has an atrocious ending).
View original postHe does make it hard to be a fan though. The first book was great, so much so that I almost think he stumbled into it on accident. It steps on a lot of tired and worn out cliches in fantasy. Second book was decent, after that it varies a lot but always follows the same theme, Richard and Kahlan get separated, one or both of them loses their powers, almost a necessity since they're both so Mary Sue, the situation is hopeless, bad guys are defeated, and also the bad guys are utterly totally evil with no redeeming merits whatsoever.
Yup. Those bad guys who start out with some appearance of roundedness either end up becoming good guys (Cara, Nicci) or turn out to be utterly evil after all. I'll give him points for Denna, but that's about the only one.
View original postSo the books started sucking from 6-8, improved a bit for 9 & 10, sucked some more for 11, I wrote the series off after 6, only skimmed 7, almost threw 8, but read 9 and was happy enough with it to do 10 and carry on for the 'conclusion' in 11, which sucked. I swore off and didn't read his prequels or side book on Earth.
Debt of Bones was readable, as I recall, largely because it was merely novella length, but it has been a very long time since I read it. I do have to quibble with "sucking from 6-8" - I've long argued that book six is in some ways the most notable book of the series and, apart from the ending as I mentioned above, arguably the best, or second best after Wizard's First Rule. It certainly doesn't approach the level of the terrible books 7 and 8. The politics are very much present, but in the form of an unsubtle propagandistic narrative, not in the form of direct preaching like in most later books.
View original postNew book, still plodding through it, thus far it's Richard talking with some girl, minus his abilities, minus his allies, just talking... and talking... and talking. It's not exactly insanely boring but its definitely not sucking me in. I was going to say it seems like his editor quit or something, with the sheer repetition of word choices in the dialogue so far but I have to assume based on the rest of the series that his editor either nods at everything, gets ignored, or is a gibbering nail-biting wreck occupying an asylum by now.
Yeah, you're very right about the editor... any halfway decent editor who could afford not to be a doormat would've excised tens if not hundreds of pages from most Sword of Truth novels, especially the later ones.
View original postAll that said though I never get why Goodkind sets so many people's teeth on edge. I can't think of anything he does that's particular abnormal in SF/F circles.
If you have to boil it down to just one thing, I would say it has to be that he not only writes about horrible mass murders and other atrocities, but has his hero condone or even perpetrate/order them in some cases, and makes abundantly clear that he supports his hero in that.
Even in Wizard's First Rule (iirc, I may be off on some details), there's some princess of 10 or so years old who is horrible to her inferiors and delights in being cruel to Richard during his captivity with Denna; he ends up violently assaulting and I think killing her, with the apparent approval of the author. That alone was enough for a lot of readers, and later occasions where Richard condemns entire cities or countries to death merely sealed it.