Single-minded Terry Goodkind

[Ramoth's Rider]

Not read the whole thread but have got to say this.

from what i have read, certain peoplehave said Oh Mr Goodkind is rubbish, self obsessed blah blah blah. Oh no sorry i havent read any of his books!.

I HAVE read the sword of Truth and yes i agree there was a preaching element come the later books, but just because the writer is arrogant or self absorbed in an interview or even in real life is no reason to bash his work if you havent read it.

The message in the books is to live your own life to a set of moral values. The wizards rules are well thought out as values. Having Blind faith in something doesnt make it right is another idea from his books.

Is that so wrong?

 

[LJonesy]

Not read the whole thread but have got to say this.

from what i have read, certain peoplehave said Oh Mr Goodkind is rubbish, self obsessed blah blah blah. Oh no sorry i havent read any of his books!.

I HAVE read the sword of Truth and yes i agree there was a preaching element come the later books, but just because the writer is arrogant or self absorbed in an interview or even in real life is no reason to bash his work if you havent read it.

The message in the books is to live your own life to a set of moral values. The wizards rules are well thought out as values. Having Blind faith in something doesnt make it right is another idea from his books.

Is that so wrong?

I have read his books.

It's not whether it's 'so wrong' or not that bugs me personally, it's just that he's lacking humility for the position he's in. That position, of that kind of influence, requires a certain amount of humility to spread a positive influence. Threads like this wouldn't exist if he wasn't so pompous and arrogant about the things he's done.

The bashing on his work comes from different perspectives, for different reasons. There are other reasons to, like this quote here: [FONT=&quot] "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]What I have done with my work has irrevocably changed the face of fantasy. In so doing I've raised the standards. I have not only injected thought into a tired empty genre, but, more importantly, I've transcended it showing what more it can be-and is so doing spread my readership to completely new groups who don’t like and wont ready typical fantasy."

[/FONT]

Is that so wrong?

[FONT=&quot]Essentially you're right, Goodkind hasn't done wrong, he's just abusing his position. Those who've read his books have found it mediocre and cliche, they bash his works for their literary reasons, not because he's a pompous ass. And by all means, they're allowed to have a point of view about his books and the man himself like that.

Please don't think i'm having a go at you or anything - this thread looks very jumbled and stating everything clearly like this i'd hope would help consolidate everything that's been said.
[/FONT]

 

[Toby Frost]

I haven't read his books; I went purely on his attitude on the linked interviews. I have nothing to say about the books, but I think he does himself no favours in interview by adopting an arrogant tone of voice. He makes some valid points in the interviews - his comment about the legitimacy of the Iraq war, for instance, is fair whether you agree with it or not - but his high-handed tone is very disagreeable.

 

[the smiling weirwood]

In fact, I've been kind of looking at the library for something of his. Haven't come across anything yet, though.

Being connected to the Head Librarian at our the county headquarters by blood I was successful in my petition to remove his works from the collection entire. I don't regret abusing my power at all.

That wouldn't explain your situation at all, but perhaps someone with a similar bent of mind took care of it.

In response to the thread, it is extremely apparent from his novels after about the third one that he is an unpleasant and pedantic person. I will admit that the first book was very good, but like Robert Jordan and the Wheel of Boredom it should have ended there instead of trailing off like a wounded animal. After Wizard's First Rule it gets steadily worse, both in terms of writing quality and the fact that he replaces plot, character depth(what little existed that is), and setting with his "philosophical" arguments and perverted sexual violence.

 

[Toby Frost]

Hummn, not sure if that was the right thing to do. He may be a git, and his views may be not entirely pleasant, but I'm not sure that is good grounds for removing him from the library. I suppose it depends whether his books are inciting something nasty or whether they are being given to the young. (And also on what grounds the library is allowed to chuck out books).

Years ago there was a debate among SF writers whether Heinlein's Starship Troopers should be put into children's libraries, as it is a political book aimed at persuading readers and it arguably glorifies war in a false manner. It's a difficult one, but people do have the right to offend us. After all, all kinds of things are said about a lot of famous authors.

 

[j d worthington]

I've got to admit that I find such tactics alarming. In what way is this different or better than any other form of arbitrary censorship? How does it differ from, say, the fundamentalists who were going around to the libraries here and removing or defacing books of fairy tales because of artwork they found "offensive" (such artwork including pieces by Arthur Rackham, for example)? In the end, it comes down to one person making a decision for others what they have the right to have access to or not, doesn't it?

 

[the smiling weirwood]

It wasn't like the books were destroyed. All books that leave the collection at my library are sold on the nickel shelf or given away. So its not like censorship. The shelf space was used to enlarge the collection of foreign writers, so I like to think it was a positive change.

In older libraries the practice or removing a selection to make room for new stuff is fairly common because shelf space is a very limited commodity. I just sped the natural process along.

 

[j d worthington]

It wasn't like the books were destroyed. All books that leave the collection at my library are sold on the nickel shelf or given away. So its not like censorship. The shelf space was used to enlarge the collection of foreign writers, so I like to think it was a positive change.

In older libraries the practice or removing a selection to make room for new stuff is fairly common because shelf space is a very limited commodity. I just sped the natural process along.

Yes, but those are generally removed because they don't get checked out, or have had replacements ordered, not because of someone's dislike of a particular writer or their work. My point is that by doing so, it does remove the availability of material for those who may want to read it, while the work still has a fair amount of viability (at least, as far as popular interest is concerned). That is a form of censorship: i.e., "deleting or suppressing as objectionable".

 

[The Shining Enigma]

I don't know whether Terry Goodkind simply lacks charisma, is overly arrogant, or simply has admirably single-mindedness.

It is certainly that, - a case of true moral clarity prevailing over the lesser instincts typical of humankind; he has come to understand himself, and therefore can identify the more positive aims.

 

[the_faery_queen]

actually goodkind is someone i don't think should be on library shelves. libaries are meant to be for everyone, they're community places. they should have books that appeal to everyone, or, that help a miniority of people (say gays, or religous people or whatnot) i don't think fantasy that is filled with rape and misogny should be there. kids can pick it up (yes they can in bookshops as well) and it's certainly not something that i consider to be a community type book. i volanteered at a library for a while, it being a community centre, for the whole community, was really important. i don't think goodkind is. fantasy is a minority genre anyway, and i think that in a place like a library, whcih has to appeal to the community, it shouldn't be offensive. and i find goodkind offensive!

and i know, some people may find gays, or people of other faiths offensive, but books on that tend to be supportive or fact based. i don't think fiction, that's offensive, and doesn't have a historial standpoint going for it, should be in a community library. *shrug*

i don't have a problem with censorship to be honest. because i think there is a time and place for everything, and goodkind isn't what i would consider suitable for a mass community appeal. to me, the man promotes misogny and rape. he glamourises it. i don't want to see that in my library.

and i know, there are some books, some will say mein kamp, or some other books that may promote racism, or be about racism and so on. but i think if they're historical, if oyu can learn about a culture, or religon, or historical viewpoint from them, then they're ok, ficitional or otherwise. goodkind doesn't have that going for his books. maybe uif he had written them in a time, or place, where abuse of women was ok, and his book was a reflection of that. OR he had written them to show up abuse of women, then ok. they'd have a place. but he didn't. and he doesn't. so they don't

in my opinion at least. community places shouldn't have stuff that deliberatly insults and puts down half the population and has no historial or social benefit. that's what i think, at least.

 

[Connavar]

Yes, but those are generally removed because they don't get checked out, or have had replacements ordered, not because of someone's dislike of a particular writer or their work. My point is that by doing so, it does remove the availability of material for those who may want to read it, while the work still has a fair amount of viability (at least, as far as popular interest is concerned). That is a form of censorship: i.e., "deleting or suppressing as objectionable".

¨

Well said !


Its very wrong IMO abusing your power to remove a writer from the library just cause you dont like him or his books. Its censorship, deciding what people shouldnt read without giving the author a chance.


Its not like he is unknown. No matter how or how bad he is he deserves his shelf space.

Library books decides which authors you find and can try.

 

[Ground Cinnamon]

Wow, lot of interesting thoughts. I've wanted to throw mine out for a while on Goodkind.

What I like about his books, as has been mentioned, how he's anti-kant: how he basically shows how blind someone can become by "good" ideas that they have not fully thought through but have just swallowed because of their emotional apeal. And the wizards rules are great.

What I hate about him is how he goes about proving his point, ie endless and mindless torture, rape, violence, etc. He sacrifices every other aspect of his writing to that. I'm amazed he calls himself a romance writer because the romance in his books is about the most shallow thing I've ever read. He describes romance, preaching it like a dictionary, instead of writing in a way that makes the reader feel the love of characters. And I agree, about half way through the series the fantasy DIES in the books, and it just becomes books about the same old characters going through the same old torture for the same old philisophical hiarcy. I feel his books (and I kind of feel the same about Robert Jordan, and TOTALY about the few DnD books I've read) have no feel of fantasy: that feeling of sinking into a realm of myth and mistery. Instead, they are very modern people who just happen to have a very modern form of mathamaticaly calulatable magic.

Having said all that, I'm on the last book and I found myself getting goose bumps as Richard marked his JaLa team with the symbols of the Dance of Death, and still find his tying together of Life and Death in that dance a great concept.

So, inspite of all I don't like, his pomposity, crudity, and lack of poetic writing, he can still grab me.

P.S. He doesn't know what the word "like" is for!!! In his last book he writes some thing like "And the apparition vanished with a sound like a door to the underworld closing." Terry! Common! Either it IS a door to the underworld closing, or else TELL US WHAT IT IS LIKE! We know your have no poetry in your heart, but for goodness sakes TRY!!! Read a Stephen King book... maybe that will clue you in...

 

[Toby Frost]

Interesting points. The library issue is difficult, but I think Goodkind's stuff should be allowed to stay with two caveats: (1) he should not incite any sort of criminal act and (2) it should be classed as adult fiction.

(1). Authors may depict unpleasant and distasteful things: that's pretty much what horror is there for. If you try to limit the sort of content that is allowed onto shelves, what criteria can you use? A lot of stuff goes on in films and books that is distasteful and we could do without - the unwholesome attitude to rape in much Manga, the habit of US war films of claiming the credit for other countries' victories, for instance - these are immoral things, but I cannot see how you could rule against them unless they could be seen as inciting crime.

I doubt Goodkind goes as far as saying that violence against women is good, although it sounds as if people here don't trust his motives in depicting it. Anyhow, good critics and readers should denounce unpleasant material in books and films, as Joss Whedon recently did about misogyny in horror films, which will result in less sales for dubious authors. If no-one buys it, it doesn't survive.

(2). I freely accept the potential problem here. As a child I was shocked to find swear words in a William Gibson novel: there used to be a sort of presumption that SFF was exciting and sometimes violent, but not in a very adult way. I would refer people to the debate about Starship Troopers here (Starship Troopers: The PITFCS Debate), where SF writers wondered whether its glorification of war made it appropriate for children to read. The only thing I can think of right now is that the SF section should stay on the opposite side of the library to the children's books.

 

[the smiling weirwood]

The thing is, something had to go to make room for the changing collection and I made sure it was those books. The change had to come from adult fiction, and honestly they were some of the least checked out books. There were others who had fewer check-outs, but his books were fatter.

And honestly, I don't care.

 

[The Shining Enigma]

He doesn't know what the word "like" is for!!!

It appears, my friend, that neither would you.

The masterful Goodkind inscribes with a startling conviction, relentless in his determination to release truth into his prose with such force that his readers will in turn receive a small part of that enlightenment.

He is in accordance with Truth.

 

[Sar]

A lot of really interesting stuff here.

I think it all comes down to the fact that Goodkind is a man who uses storytelling to present ideas. It is going to be interpreted in all sorts of ways (obviously). That is the beauty of any kind of art, be it literature, painting, architecture, or whatever. Art evokes human emotion, and Goodkind has accomplished this.

Perhaps we should focus internally more than externally. If Goodkind's work inspires you to be better, or enhances your morale sense, then good. If you are made uncomfortable or are offended by it, then don't read it. I can understand both sides.

Extremes are usually bad. Dissmissing Goodkind's work because he seems arrogant, or worshipping him just because you love his books; either way, the art is destroyed and we might be missing something that could be beneficial to us personally.

 

[icundell]

It appears, my friend, that neither would you.

The masterful Goodkind inscribes with a startling conviction, relentless in his determination to release truth into his prose with such force that his readers will in turn receive a small part of that enlightenment.

He is in accordance with Truth.

OK Terry. You can stop now.

 

[Connavar]

The thing is, something had to go to make room for the changing collection and I made sure it was those books. The change had to come from adult fiction, and honestly they were some of the least checked out books. There were others who had fewer check-outs, but his books were fatter.

And honestly, I don't care.

What has that his books are fatter to do with anything



Im just glad this could never happen here. No one person has this kind of power to remove books just cause he doesnt like the author......

 

[nixie]

Im just glad this could never would happen here. No one person has this kind of power to remove books just cause he doesnt like the author......

Couldn't agree more

 

[the smiling weirwood]

It has to do the physical allocation of shelf space. There is a limited amount of shelf space to be had, and yet new books are being written all the time. Thus, some books must be removed in order for the new ones.