Sorry so late in getting back here. Busy day at work.
My, but we've misinterpreted what I said... except SilverStar.
Have to set things right.
Winters_Sorrow said:
Excuse me, but did you just compare Robert Jordan & Terry Goodkind to Shakespeare and Dickens?
Yep. But only to the extent that none were universally recognized as literary masters in their day and that some had written with certain common goals in mind.
Relax. I'm not saying there will be "Intro to Sword of Truth" or "Intro to Wheel of Time" classes in colleges a hundred years from now.
BUT you never know...
Winters_Sorrow said:
Surely they have to be original first?
You'd be amazed at the number of times Shakespeare "ripped off" previous writers.
Heh. Good thing for Will there weren't any Internet posting boards in the Elizabethan Period.
Winters_Sorrow said:
Jordan & Goodkind are merely two of a large list of fantasy authors.
I find them no more (and usually less) well written and original than many other authors writing today and if anyone should be included in such halcyon companies it's authors who have stood the test of time such as Asimov, Tolkien and numerous other 'golden age' authors.
I certainly won't argue Tolkien or Asimov, but neither are exactly contemporary writers. That is to say, time has given us perspective on their work.
I'm suggesting we allow the test of time before inducting OR dismissing Jordan and Goodkind. (And Bradbury and Zelazny and...)
Winters_Sorrow said:
To compare Goodkind & Jordan to such literary masters makes me feel physically ill.
I've steered clear of this thread because, quite frankly I haven't and do not wish to read or debate Goodkind's works. I read the first and found it boring, derivative and sloppy.
I hope that my clarification has eased any lingering nausea.
If it makes you feel better, there were plenty of people back in the day who would have been horrified to learn that Dickens is classified as "Proper Literature."
You don't care for Goodkind (or Jordan, by the sound of it). Fair enough. For a first novel, I found Wizard’s First Rule exceptional. I thought it was fresh, energetic, and well worth my time. I agree some parts were sloppy, though.
But whether you or I like or dislike something has nothing to do with whether it will become literature fifty or a hundred years down the line.
For instance, I despised James Joyce's
Ulysses. Another friend, also a recovering lit major, thinks it's the greatest book of the 20th century. That argument is subjective. But the issue of whether
Ulysses is proper literature is pretty much settled, whether I want it to be or not.
Brys said:
In terms of writing, I think a certain level of complexity and maturity is required. Goodkind fails to achieve that. As Moorcock says (indirectly), he can't write a decent complex coherent sentence. "Richard is bigger than most men. These men were bigger than him" is not an example of high quality concise, clear prose. There are examples of elegant economy of style - look at Graham Joyce for example. Even Moorcock sometimes uses this kind of style. Goodkind's is simplistic writing that you would of school children. If it was an exception, fine. But it isn't. Goodkind in his writing often writes sentences that make no sense. Unless it's intentionally humorous (and from the context, that seems very unlikely), you can't really have a path running near mid-height along a sheer cliff-face.
Of course, you realize that in the example you cite, both sentences are clear and concise. Hemmingway made a career of writing sentences less complex.
Give me 50 pages of text, and I'll come up with sentences that make even the best wordsmith look foolish when taken out of context. I've read Moorcock. He wrote some howlers himself, and he'd be lying if he said he didn't.
Brys said:
Of course. And so did Mervyn Peake. But these authors were highly skilled, and the criticism they attracted was often on certain aspects of their work. But there was clear, important social commentary in these novels, but the political aspects never negated the essentials of a novel - plot, characterisation and writing. It should not be didactic fiction if it is going to be "proper literature", and it can't ignore important concerns either.
I disagree that Goodkind's political and social commentary get in the way of the plot, character, and theme. I find they are generally integral to them. I do think that some of his books handle that integration better than others, however.
The last part about didactic fiction is demonstrably untrue.
Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan,
Utopia by Thomas More,
Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift, and
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand are relentlessly didactic, yet all are considered literature.
Brys said:
Then it's certainly premature to talk of comparing them to Dickens et al. Goodkind has not yet displayed any particular skill which exceeds even the vast majority of his contemporaries. If Goodkind could be described as "proper literature", then almost every single published writer could be. Goodkind doesn't have a fraction of Mieville's skill, yet I'd still be surprised if Mieville was ever considered "Proper Literature". He has recieved a lot of criticism on certain aspects, but critics have found positive aspects of his writing. This is usually the case.
Again, I was comparing them in terms that would apply to any two authors, established, enshrined, or not.
And yes, my point was that just about any published author
could be (not "will be") described as proper lit. It takes time to make that determination, and neither you nor Wethead nor I will make that call.
Brys said:
Of course. Why does that stop it being fantasy? No one is arguing that isn't fantasy, unless of course you think (or the author) thought those things could really happen. Goodkind writes fantasy - the story occurs in a place that doesn't exist, there is magic, there are fantastical creatures - that is what makes it fantasy. His talk of fantasy focusing on magic rather than theme, plot or characterisation just shows his ignorance of the genre.
Maybe I stated that unclearly. My point was not that the works were not fantasy. It was that fantasy can be literature of value, not just escapist trash.
I actually disagree with Goodkind's analysis of the fantasy genre as you present it. I think he made a valid point that can apply to a lot of what's out there, but he overstated his case, if he indeed painted the whole of the genre with that brush.
Brys said:
Any assumption that someone will become "Proper Literature" because they are popular but recieve a lot of criticism IMO is very flawed. Goodkind, in his quality of writing, cannot compare to the pulp writers of the 1920s/1930s. Yet none of those pulp writers have become Proper Literature, they just have respect within fantasy circles.
Totally agree with the first part. Except, I didn't made that assumption.
It was Wethead who made that assumption (in the negative sense) with his statement that what Goodkind is writing is not "Proper Literature," but escapist fantasy. My point was that he was premature by several decades to dismiss Goodkind (or Jordan) and that the critiques of the day can be poor indicators.
Unlike Wethead, I don't pretend to know what will or won't be considered literature. Whatever it is, it can't be as bad as some of the stuff I suffered through in college.
