About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 7:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was first lead to ayn rand by TG via a transcript of a chat, or talk that he gave.

the transcript is at terrygoodkind.com

his books are excellent. especially faith of the fallen, which his detractors have called too "preachy" and "randroid".

if someone who had never read ayn rand before was interested in learning about objectivism (and also reading great stories), i would suggest to them that they read TG first. for me, his books were... a primer for objectivism.

Post 1

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 7:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I picked up the first book in this series based on seeing it here. It was a good read, and I'll be continuing on with the series for now. Thanks for the tip off!

Post 2

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 8:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There's an Objectivist fantasy fiction author!?

Kewl!!!

(bite me.  This material girl's feeling young this morning)

-Jeanie


Post 3

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 3:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just finished reading everything he has published and wait for the next book coming in 2005. 

Its a good series, long but good.  (Took me four months to get through them all)

~E.


Post 4

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 3:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OOPs

(Edited by Eric J. Tower on 11/29, 3:15pm)


Post 5

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 9:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
These books are a masterpiece.

Post 6

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
These books are a travesty.  They read like something stolen from Ayn Rand's wastebasket.

JR


Post 7

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 2:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've read all of these books, and they are amazing to say the least.

Post 8

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 3:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff, William,

What makes the books travesties/amazing?

Sarah

Post 9

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 1:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah:
Terry Goodkind does an excellent job in the writing of these books. His characters are understandable and the heroes worthy of respect. Though they are fairly easy reads, they do require understanding the messages in the plots. I developed a whole spectrum of feelings for the characters which made the books even more enjoyable. The hero has a reasoning mind and is a model of greatness. It's been a while since I've read the series, but I still remember some of those "up all night" reads. They are interesting and involve the reader. I haven't read these books since I found Ayn Rand, so I can't give a comparison based on objectivism, but there is a Creator and and Underworld, and of course there is magic (they're fantasy novels). Anyway, I enjoyed the books immensely and I know quite a few people who have as well.


Post 10

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 3:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah, ditto.

Started reading the series in high school and then, quite out of the blue Faith Of The Fallen turned out to be Ayn Rand's greatest hits. Never even saw it coming, but there it is.

To me the best reason for reading the books is, of course, the protagonist. John and Howard have a mystique about them that I find obfuscates their realism. They escape real life quandrys where Goodkind's Richard faces them with the compassion and easy-wisdom you'd have to assume John and Howard would have applied if they hadn't been rescued by Ayn Rand's pen. That's the element I'm most grateful for- and Faith Of The Fallen is the best novel I've ever read.


Post 11

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 6:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have read his stories long before I found Ayn Rand and her novels. I always loved his stories, because they have all the classic elements of drama. Although there were some weak books in the series, it was overall really insightful. Since it hit my youth with the first vivid picture of what Communism was about, it certainly influenced my further reading a lot.
Goodkind brought me back to life by reconsidering my liberal-anarchist view of a perfect society (not communist but socialist) and reconciled it with many errors I had detected when I was 14.

He rocks, although I disagree about some of his arguments, I still love most of his novels (except Soul of Fire, because of the apparent naturalism in it). It is also shows some interesting points about terrorism or rather resistance in his latest books (like Faith of the Fallen, Naked Empire and Chainfire).

Sadly, the series will end with the next two books, but I am hoping for more after that :)


Post 12

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 6:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
@Rick:

And it is also the most polarizing novel of Goodkinds writings, because many socialists and christians feel themselves attacked by this book. I think this makes a great book sometimes :)


Post 13

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 9:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah writes:

"Jeff, William,

"What makes the books travesties/amazing?"

I have no wish to rain on William's parade, or on the parades of the others on this thread who seem to have responded with great enthusiasm to Mr. Goodkind's offerings.  Unlike them, I'm not reporting on my personal reaction to his books.  I'm summarizing my considered judgment as to their esthetic merit.  It seems to me that Goodkind is terribly derivative -- derivative generally, but derivative of Rand in particular.  There's nothing in any of his books that is really original.  It's a combination of run-of-the-mill fantasy with Randian speeches placed in various characters' mouths.  The speeches sound like something Rand might have written herself and then tossed in the trashcan next to her typewriter as not good enough.  In a recent long article I contributed to Chris Sciabarra's Journal of Ayn Rand Studies on "Ayn Rand's Influence on American Popular Fiction,"  I called this "imitation Rand" and discussed it in greater detail.  For those interested, I recommend you take a look at the article.  It's in Volume 6, No. 1 - Fall 2004.
 
JR


Post 14

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
@Max:

Of course! The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. If it doesn't polerise it invites indifference, and I can't stand indifference.

I don't too much mind that the series is ending. It seems to me that Terry Goodkind must be running out of challenges to throw at  Rahl. Richard can only be kidnapped so many times and collect so many pendents around his neck. He's suffered and overcome so much as to become so powerful now that there's nothing left in my imagination to provide the element of conflict anymore.
Also, I'm sick of his wife. Never liked her.

@Riggenbach:
There's nothing in any of his books that is really original.  It's a combination of run-of-the-mill fantasy with Randian speeches placed in various characters' mouths. 

Original? But there's nothing new under the sun, only new reactions to the same old things.
In Faith Of The Fallen the Atlas Shurgged subplot of Hank Reardon vs his family is retold in terms of a throughly industrious, productive and decent- but philosophically defenseless- armourer. This fable is pure Ayn Rand, but no message could have been any clearer than in Goodkind's telling. Reading this was a major wake-up to me in recognising the critical urgency of philosophical munitions.

It is not "imitation Rand", only a re-expression for another genra and another generation. Do you think the morals of Homer,  Euripides, Dante, Shakespeare and Dickens are interpreted by a modern audience as they were in their own times? To bring the same pathos these days requires different literary machinery, and that is what makes books like Faith Of The Fallen legitimate and necessary.


Post 15

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick -

One problem with Goodkind (and it's a deal-killer for me) is that he has no ear for prose.  It's as though he's tone deaf as far as the "music" of prose is concerned.  His writing is clunky in a way that Rand's never is.  This is part of the reason he comes off to me as "imitation Rand," like something he might have found in her wastebasket, because she knew it wasn't yet good enough to send out to the publisher.  But Tone Deaf Terry doesn't know.  He sends it out.

JR


Post 16

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Muahahaha. My diabolical plan to incite a flame war is well on its way to success!

Sarah

Post 17

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 4:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hah! How quickly Riggenbach changes dance steps from content to prose.
 
You start making arrests for that though and you'll never be out of work! But if you've read David Gemmel or David Eddings you probably think the same of them. After the first 10 of their books it wears a bit thin doesn't it? But until it does the reading is still a pleasure. Perhaps the better writer (or composer or whichever) is the one who you never get tired of. Some songs can't be flogged to death no matter how many times the radio station plays them.
Same with Sesame St, diminishing returns have set in now but until they did we were getting value out of it. So you can't strikeout Goodkind on prose alone.

ps Anybody notice how House has gone all puckish this month?
Muahahaha
Just a hunch, but do you have a cat named Azreal?


Post 18

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 6:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No - but had one called Eet...

Post 19

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 7:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What Goodkind does is miracelous, because he can do things, Ayn Rand never was capable of in her fiction books.
He gets all the concepts in a clear understandable sentence without having to write a 900+ pages titan, which kept me awake sometimes, but asleep on other parts.
I grant that Mr. Goodkind is no Günther Grass of the language, but the easy fluid writing and the emotional deepness of it is more of my liking than the sometimes emotionless writing of Rand.
I can deeply sympathize and relate to Richard Rahl, why I have many difficulties with the characters from Rands books. I know her books were meant to transport her philosophy, but Mr. Goodkind does the same thing while still respecting the rules of classical drama.

Plotwise:

I also think that Mr. Goodkind should close the series as fast as possible, because he needs new fresh characters to write about. Although I must say that I love the new plot on which he has built up to since the middle of the series. It is just heartbreaking and encaptivating in regard of the whole story and as the events unfold.
The thing is that Goodkind can write action in magnificient stride which I have only seen in two other fantasy books: Wurts' War of Shadow and Light and George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.