Terry Goodkind - Sword of Truth Series

Remove all ads!

Do not read this thread if you haven't finished the series as I do not want to be held responsible for spoiling things for you. You have been warned

Spoiler

I just finished the final book of the series and felt the need to post about it.

1. I wasn't thrilled with the ending. A large part of "Confessor" kept me on the edge of my couch, but then the ending was a letdown. To have Shota be the "mother" character who was guiding all of the minor characters and then defeat "Six" was disappointing to me. Then to have Richard understand everything about Orden and have it turn out to be nothing like Goodkind spent the previous ten books writing about bothered me.

2. I was praying at the end of the book that he wasn't going to pull an L. Ron Hubbard of "Invasion Earth" and actually name the world Richard created "Earth", even though IMO he seemed to do a hell of a job implying it. While not being a deeply religious man, I do take offense to the opinion that somehow religious people are not "creative", don't believe in "freedom", etc. etc.

3. Lastly, I also couldn't help feeling that Goodkind wrapped everything up because he knew that Robert Jordan was dying (and is now dead) and he didn't want his legacy to go unfinished.

Overall I enjoyed the series, but the one thing I think we are all learning about the massive epic fantasies is that they really seem to lose steam. I think there is a reason that most epic fantasy writers stick to trilogies. Hopefully, George R.R. Martin will realize this and not drag "Song of Fire and Ice" forever also.

 

Terry--Blessed Be His Name (We Love How He Touches Us)--has made it quite clear that the story is going to continue. I could dig up the appropriate interviews, if you want.

 

I will probably finish reading the series one of these days just to see how far out mr Goodkind can go. Snook about the attacks on religion, the last three books I read in hte series were nothing but political pamphlets for Ayn Rand like philosophy. You noticed the attacks on religion, didnt oyu notice the blunt, crude attacks on what Goodkind think is socialism or even normal compassion and solidarity? Goodkind is a nutcase, total and utterly nutcase but there have to be a whole bunch of people who agree with him, he will probably pull a Hubbard soon and start maybe not a religion but maybe his own party?

 

Not to turn this into an Alley discussion, but I tend to agree with his views on socialism and people believing that the government should take care of them. I guess I have to take the good with the bad

 

Terry's views on socialism don't even register on my radar. This stuff, however...(yes, yes, I've linked to it before. Leave me alone!)

He has a serious obsession with sexual violence which is more than a little disturbing.

 

@Amaster,

Your link isn't working, but I do agree with you. I have also been troubled by it in the last couple of books.

 

It's not that I'm opposed to sexual violence in literature per se (Donaldson, Bakker, Martin, and Carey, for instance, have written superb works in which sexual violence features to a greater or lesser degree), so much that Terry's use of it seems gratuitious--much like, say, The Hills Have Eyes.

Likewise, it's not that I'm opposed to people enjoying crap (I consider SoT crap; crap plot, worldbuilding, charcter development, didacticism, etc). I enjoy a fair amount of crap myself (300, Beowulf, Resident Evil, etc). I just wish that more people were willing to recognize that they're enjoying crap, and that the crap wouldn't sell so well in comparison to, well, works that are actually good.

 

The first book in the series is being made into a TV series. Dirvected by Sam Raimi. Can find info about it on imdb.com. For those of you who didn`t know yet.
Its out this year I belive.

 

Wow, simply and utterly, wow. Nambles? Really? Are we honest to God serious here? I never knew such levels of depravity existed in "main stream" fantasy (as if there is such thing as that). Mind you I haven't read a book from the fantasy genre in over seven years so maybe the books now are nothing but senseless violence and perverse S/M, rape fantasy, or bestiality stuff.

Anyhow, regardless of how much anything could degenerate, I have a hard time stomaching a main character who isn't suppose to be an anti-hero using such violence against an eight year old child, regardless of how wicked of a child she is. Somehow doesn't seem very heroic, more like uncontrolled and psychopathic. Not to mention it doesn't really seem like an action Rand would endorse as it's isn't the byproduct of rational behavior theory, but merely an outburst of emotion that doesn't even qualify as Nietzschean freedom.

Every time stuff like the SoT get published, I swear a real ethicist out there dies.

If Mr. Goodkind could just label his character an anti-hero...

 

The stuff Goodkind has written about, in the scenes you point out, has been happening for real since the dawn of mankind. Its nothing new, and it won`t go away. Not even if fantasy authors stear clear of stuff like that. Us humans arn`t really a nice race, to put it that way.

 

I hold no illusions about the human race. I do however hold a "Hero" to a higher moral standard then your average human. It's part of being the hero, a certain degree of decency. An anti-hero or villain grievously harms children when there is no such utility in the action (and I'd say harming a child for the sake of utility 9 of 10 times isn't heroic). The closest I've seen a bonafide hero do was Cu Chulain when he killed his own son, but even then they faced each other as warriors and there is a "heroic" reconciling as Connla dies. No hero I've ever read assaults an unarmed 8 year old girl and retains the mantle of "hero".

As for bestiality and "rape fantasy", there are more tact ways for getting it across. There is no need to go in details when a such details do not further the plot line (which they almost never do). Going into details of such as bestiality primarily serves to raise questions about the author's state of mind and provide a sort of secret, taboo pleasure for some of the readers and honestly, if you want that stuff, they have actual genres that deal explicitly with such material. It further raises the questions of a writer's ability when they venture repeatedly into sexual scenes that fail to further the plot line while not writing adult novels.

Some of my other issues where with objectivism itself, hence the comment about Rand, but since Booktalk isn't a place for ethical/moral debate I'll let that one slip away.

 

I think the reason many authors, like Goodkind, describes scenes like that in such details: is to add more "punch" to it. It shows cruelty alot more and such. And that, in turn, makes the reader sympathize with the victim alot more, and hate the one doing it alot more. As for Richard kicking that evil kid: it was unessecary of him, of course. But I think it added a personal flaw to the character. No heroes in real life are angelic people who never does anything wrong. The scene, did in my eyes, added a much more human and flawed side to Richard. Maybe even a hint of something he might had gotten from his father`s genes. Something like that. I agree with you on the moral issues of course. Just adding a suggestion to why those scenes are written as they are.

 

Yes, it's more widely known as "exploitation." TV and Hollywood have been at it for years....

 

You took that one out of context didn`t you?

Makes me wonder abit though: What is worst? Rape or death? Personally I would say death is the worst. But nobody yells out when there is a very detailed death scene described in a book. The Drizzt books are full of them, and those books are aimed at teens. I am only at book 8 in the sword of truth series though, so I can`t really know if it gets worse after that. The only scenes I remember as "harsh" was: the kid being kicked in the face, Richard getting raped by the mord-sith. Other than that, not much really happened. If I remember correctly: Alot of the books didn`t really have any of the "extreme" stuff in it. But anyway. People who react badly to scenes like that, shouldn`t read the books. Or if they are reading it: Skip the scene. Nobody is forcing anyone to read it. The Wheel of Time sieries is alot like SoT. Without the violence of course. And its more aimed at teens. I recomend that one.

 

To an extent, violence is inherent to fantasy, simply because the works that formed the basis for fantasy (i.e. the Volsung saga, the Odyssey, the Iliad, the Celtic cycles, Morte de Arthur, etc...) placed a heavy emphasis on violence, predominately because the nature of life at that time made martial skills very important. Violence, for your Iron Age, Dark Age and Medieval civilizations, was glorified because of its seeming necessity (not to mention the notion of divine judgment often associated with combat in Christian Europe at that time). Sex scene are relatively without elaboration in these stories, even in sexually permissive societies like Dark Age Scandinavia (i.e. in the Saga of the Volsungs, there is little elaboration on Sigmund's "sex scene" in which he unwittingly sleeps with his sister, but considerable elaboration to the nature of Volsung's murder as it establishes that he has no fear of death).

Mind you, I do agree with your sentiment about violence. Of the fantasy books I've read, I tend to find they do a bad job with violence (yes I'm taking to you Martin). Beowulf, Arthur, Gawain, or even your typical knight or viking has religious justification for their actions. The Norse gods glorified war, as the Aesir where a pantheon of War Gods (the Norse had the Vanir as a separate fertility pantheon, but these gods aren't believed, aside from Freyr, Freyja and Njord, to be very important) and most Christian knights when into battle believing that God was sanctioning their actions. Admittedly, it may now look like I've lost your point, but what I'm saying heroes of yore never had to deal with right or wrong because they had divine justification, the moral decision had already been made.

I've never read a story in which the hero as a mindset like Arthur (or more so, Galahad). Certainly to an extent, with Drizz't there is a defined good and evil, but even then, as the "Book of Exalted Deeds" states, roughly, a truly good hero seeks to redeem his foes rather then slay them (since Forgotten Realms novels are essentially using D+D moral standards). Also fantasy heroes, that I've read, never believed themselves to be in a war between God and the Devil (hence the battle that Merlin shows Arthur the battle between the white and red dragon) and hence don't have the moral obligation to slay the allies of the Devil (no, I'm not advocating pro or anti-Christian stance here). One should ask why, in a morally ambiguous setting, violence, especially violence that isn't necessary, can be just and heroic (thanks Nietzsche). Is the hero any more heroic then the villain when the hero takes revenge against the villain or is the hero only heroic for taking revenge because the author tells us so? The hero's actions are the actions that matter most, because, unless the main character is an anti-hero, this hero's actions are supposed to be viewed as acceptable. If a villain commits horrific actions I'm not particularly concerned, as when the main villain in the SoT has his way with women or cuts off testicles (unless I'm getting unneeded fluff, which has no point in the story) as most people don't view villains as someone to emulate or idealize.

Personally I place rape as worse then murder because being raped has lingering effects, being murdered doesn't (sorry bad humor). However I find it strange that most fantasy seems to find violence to be less offensive then theft or soliciting prostitution (honestly what's with heroes in medieval societies that are egalitarian, above stealing, mistreating those below them, won't have sex with women they don't love, but kill without the slightest thoughts... I sense a disconnect here).

Well anyway, I've sent too much time writing and rewriting this post. I don't think it'll get any better so I'll post it as it is.

 

The problem isn't that Goodkind uses rape. Or brutality. Or both. The problem is the way he uses them.

Rape, etc. can be used very effectively; see Donaldson's Gap Cycle (which, incidentally, is vastly superior to his Thomas Covenant work). Goodkind doesn't use such things effectively, he uses them gratuitously. It's the difference between, say, Saw and Saving Private Ryan.

 

Good point. To the both of you. Those scenes arn`t my favorites, to put it that way. But they do give me a feeling of how cruel the world is in the story. Personally I think it adds something. Even though I am not fond of it. I have only finished book 7, so I don`t know if it gets worse after that. But truth be told, its not an overflow of scenes like that either. I don`t think book 2, for example, had anything like that in it. Allthough I am not sure. Its years since I read it.

 

Dude. Dude

 

I'm hoping it's real. It has to be real. That would be indescribably awesome. The hours of hilarity that would result would be totally worth the societal damage caused by such a novel.