Goodkind Vs. Jordan: The battle of the century
Brad Simmerman
sure some if not most of you know of the similarities between RJ and Terry
Goodkind, the author of the "Sword of Truth" series. Well, in Goodkind's
newest book "Soul of the Fire" he blatantly mocks RJ. This isn't really a
spoiler but if you are planning to read "Soul of the Fire" read this message
after you have reached about page 300.
Okay, Goodkind's character Zedd comes up with a name for a fictional
monster. He calls it a "Lurk" any of you reading RJ or this NG know that
Lurk is another names for Myddraal. Goodkinds characters mock the name Lurk
saying it sound like it was from a children's book. That is kind of low on
Goodkinds part, seeing as how all of his books in that series (with the
exception of Wizard's First Rule) copy RJ's in once aspect or another. Here
is a short list I have compiled:
A warrior tribe that is promised to be returned to their ancient homeland by
their leader "Caharin" (hmmm, can you say Aiel?)
A massive army from an ancient land attacking
A group of women dedicated to the Creator, with a dark group dedicated to
the Keeper. (Black Ajah anyone?)
Leashes to control those that use magic
I'm sure there are more, and i would welcome a discussion.
Brad Simmerman
"Til shade is gone, til water is gone,
into the shadow with teeth barred,
screaming defiance with the last breath
to spit in sightblinder's eye on the final day"
Michael Reagor
<snip>
I'll leave in some spoiler space for the new Goodkind book.
>Okay, Goodkind's character Zedd comes up with a name for a
>fictional monster. He calls it a "Lurk" any of you reading RJ or
>this NG know that Lurk is another names for Myddraal. Goodkinds
>characters mock the name Lurk saying it sound like it was from a
>children's book. That is kind of low on Goodkinds part, seeing as
>how all of his books in that series (with the exception of
>Wizard's First Rule) copy RJ's in once aspect or another.
IIRC a lurk is a name of a monster from a children's book. You may
remember the character from the Adams Family named Lurch, which I
believe is a play on the monster called a lurk. The monster is also
probably where we get the word lurk meaning to lie in wait, as in
ambush.
As to the list of things Goodkind has taken from Jordan I couldn't
comment as I haven't read Goodkind. But I hear it is quite an
extensive list.
--
Michael Reagor mre...@tamu.edu
"His diet consists of black coffee and sarcasm."
Matthew Brock, Newsradio
Brad Simmerman
that it used to lurk around and pounce on things, so his wife called it
Lurk. That is the written explanation for the name, but I think it more
likely that Goodkind is just taking a cheap shot at RJ.
Brad Simmerman
mr_whi...@my-deja.com
"Brad Simmerman" <xar...@home.com> wrote:
> I used to consistently read this NG, but have been away for a while.
I'm
> sure some if not most of you know of the similarities between RJ and
Terry
> Goodkind, the author of the "Sword of Truth" series. Well, in
Goodkind's
> newest book "Soul of the Fire" he blatantly mocks RJ. This isn't
really a
> spoiler but if you are planning to read "Soul of the Fire" read this
message
> after you have reached about page 300.
>
> monster. He calls it a "Lurk" any of you reading RJ or this NG know
that
> Lurk is another names for Myddraal. Goodkinds characters mock the
name Lurk
> saying it sound like it was from a children's book. That is kind of
low on
> Goodkinds part, seeing as how all of his books in that series (with
the
> exception of Wizard's First Rule) copy RJ's in once aspect or another.
> is a short list I have compiled:
>
> A warrior tribe that is promised to be returned to their ancient
homeland by
> their leader "Caharin" (hmmm, can you say Aiel?)
> A massive army from an ancient land attacking
> A group of women dedicated to the Creator, with a dark group dedicated
to
> the Keeper. (Black Ajah anyone?)
> Leashes to control those that use magic
>
> I'm sure there are more, and i would welcome a discussion.
You know those are pretty superficial, and it isn't like Jordan was the
guy who thought all those premises up. They probably just have some
pretty similar source material.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lars Olav Tungesvik
Brad Simmerman wrote:
> I used to consistently read this NG, but have been away for a while. I'm
> sure some if not most of you know of the similarities between RJ and Terry
> Goodkind, the author of the "Sword of Truth" series. Well, in Goodkind's
> newest book "Soul of the Fire" he blatantly mocks RJ. This isn't really a
> spoiler but if you are planning to read "Soul of the Fire" read this message
> after you have reached about page 300.
How can Goodkind mock or copying Jordan when he has said many times that he has
never read Robert Jordan.
Lars Olav
Lars Olav Tungesvik
Brad Simmerman wrote:
> I used to consistently read this NG, but have been away for a while. I'm
> sure some if not most of you know of the similarities between RJ and Terry
> Goodkind, the author of the "Sword of Truth" series. Well, in Goodkind's
> newest book "Soul of the Fire" he blatantly mocks RJ. This isn't really a
> spoiler but if you are planning to read "Soul of the Fire" read this message
> after you have reached about page 300.
How can Goodkind mock or copying Jordan, when he has said many times that he has
never read Robert Jordan?
Lars Olav
Thom Jeffries
"Lars Olav Tungesvik" <lot...@online.no> wrote in message
news:393E4E0C...@online.no...
>
>
> Brad Simmerman wrote:
>
> > I used to consistently read this NG, but have been away for a while.
I'm
> > sure some if not most of you know of the similarities between RJ and
Terry
> > Goodkind, the author of the "Sword of Truth" series. Well, in
Goodkind's
> > newest book "Soul of the Fire" he blatantly mocks RJ. This isn't really
a
> > spoiler but if you are planning to read "Soul of the Fire" read this
message
> > after you have reached about page 300.
>
he has
> never read Robert Jordan.
>
> Lars Olav
Then they must live next door to each other and go to the same local
library for references and source materials. And it's a small library.
Thom Jeffries
Thom Jeffries
>
>
> Brad Simmerman wrote:
>
> > I used to consistently read this NG, but have been away for a while.
I'm
> > sure some if not most of you know of the similarities between RJ and
Terry
> > Goodkind, the author of the "Sword of Truth" series. Well, in
Goodkind's
> > newest book "Soul of the Fire" he blatantly mocks RJ. This isn't really
a
> > spoiler but if you are planning to read "Soul of the Fire" read this
message
> > after you have reached about page 300.
>
he has
> never read Robert Jordan?
Cenotaph99
would like to know if Goodkind would be recommended. I see his books everywhere
but I'm not sure if I should pick him up or not.
krista - who delurked a while ago but never has anything good to contribute.
ICQ# 53716885
"If all paths lead but to the grave then let us dance along our way" - Faith
and the Muse
Brad Simmerman
series. Like Jordan's series, it is still in progress, but unlike Jordan's
series, you can wait for the next book. By that I mean with Goodkind's
series, there is not a lot to remember between books and not a lot of
referencing to previous books etc.
Brad Simmerman
xar...@home.com
Brad Simmerman
Brad Simmerman
Brad Simmerman
xar...@home.com
Kay-Arne Hansen
Brad Simmerman wrote:
>Thom Jeffries wrote;
> >Then they must live next door to each other and go to the same local
> >library for references and source materials. And it's a small library.
>
> Yes, a small library, featuring only works by RJ.
When WoT is done, it'll be a big library.
---
KAH
D. C. Kalen
Lars Olav Tungesvik <lot...@online.no> wrote in message
news:393E4EB0...@online.no...
>
>
> Brad Simmerman wrote:
>
> > I used to consistently read this NG, but have been away for a while.
I'm
> > sure some if not most of you know of the similarities between RJ and
Terry
> > Goodkind, the author of the "Sword of Truth" series. Well, in
Goodkind's
> > newest book "Soul of the Fire" he blatantly mocks RJ. This isn't really
a
> > spoiler but if you are planning to read "Soul of the Fire" read this
message
> > after you have reached about page 300.
>
> How can Goodkind mock or copying Jordan, when he has said many times that
he has
> never read Robert Jordan?
>
their favorite author is the very Creator of All Things Original and that
anyone else who writes (or has previously written) a story that is in any
way similar, superficial or otherwise, is a cheap, thieving hack who
couldn't possibly have thought up any of that stuff on his/her own. Having
absolutely no knowledge of the other author(s) whatsoever (as to whether
they had even read the first author's work or not, or even know much of
anything about it), they conclude with self-righteous fury that the other
work(s) in question are nothing more than thinly veiled plagiarisms of the
first and, frankly, aren't even half so good.
See also: rec.arts.books.tolkien
For our next exercise, let us discuss how Jordan is a cheap, thieving hack
for having a main character who is an orphan of royal blood (of which he is,
initially, totally unaware), raised on a farm by another family, and who,
destined for greatness, power & etc., continually whines "Why me?" through
half the series. Eddings, anyone?
-- Dan, who doesn't think Jordan is a cheap, thieving hack, or Goodkind
either (regardless of what one may otherwise think of his books)
Randy K. Secrist
10 reasons why GK is better than RJ.
1. RJ is wordy. It takes him 3 pages to describe a simple scenario. This
is why his books are so long, and not much is getting accomplished.
2. Rand is going mad with the power. How many times do I need to read this
in each book? Will there ever be a resolution, or destruction of Rand? -
or is RJ just looking to stretch the series and make more $$$?
3. Prophesies in GK are as abstract as Jordan, difficult to understand, and
more believable than RJ's. After reading prophesy after prophesy in Jordan,
you begin to feel like none of them matter since much of what he writes is
either not touching that prophecy, or the fulfillment thereof is too obvious
to be believable.
4. The odd pronunciation in RJ's books. If I wanted to read a language
other than English, I would pick up a copy in the other languages I am
already fluent in.
5. GK writes stories for a more adult oriented audience. The books, if
written into a screenplay would be rated pg13 or R at best. The author
doesn't use simple obviousness to entertain the audience. (Refer to
question 3 - there are plenty of examples where it is obvious Rand is the
dragon reborn - before the 3rd book. Does it really take 3 books to get to
that conclusion?)
6. What happened to RJ's cool looking cover art after book 7?
7. Richard's story and background - while similar to Rand - are much more
interesting than Rand's story overall. Especially his relationship to Zedd.
8. Dragon's exist in GK's book.
9. There are more religious overtones in GK's book.
10. There is a realistic love relationship in GK's book. Character's just
don't simply fall in love when they first see each other as with most other
fantasy books.
While I love GK, I also still like RJ. Having read all 8 of RJ's books - I
will continue to purchase and read new books. I would like to know the
outcome of the series. I do like some things over GK. Look for that list
later.
Rand
"Cenotaph99" <cenot...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000607135657...@ng-md1.aol.com...
Maia
>
> Speaking of Goodkind, I've only started reading fantasy a few years ago and
> would like to know if Goodkind would be recommended. I see his books everywhere
> but I'm not sure if I should pick him up or not.
>
> krista - who delurked a while ago but never has anything good to contribute.
IMHO, he is pretty dreadful. Mediocre writing, lots of gratuitious
violence, S@M, and some really insipid plots in later volumes. I am
afraid that certain similarity with TWOT is painfully evident too. The
very first book "Wizard's First Rule" is somewhat readable, but it
goes downhill from there.
There is lots of better fantasy around.
Brad Simmerman
by
> their leader "Caharin" (hmmm, can you say Aiel?)
> A massive army from an ancient land attacking
> A group of women dedicated to the Creator, with a dark group dedicated to
> the Keeper. (Black Ajah anyone?)
> Leashes to control those that use magic
>
> I'm sure there are more, and i would welcome a discussion.
>
try to purge the world of magic.... anybody see the similarity?
splintworth
Brad Simmerman <xar...@home.com> wrote in message
news:jcj%4.3870$nM1....@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> I used to consistently read this NG, but have been away for a while. I'm
> sure some if not most of you know of the similarities between RJ and Terry
> Goodkind, the author of the "Sword of Truth" series. Well, in Goodkind's
> newest book "Soul of the Fire" he blatantly mocks RJ. This isn't really a
> spoiler but if you are planning to read "Soul of the Fire" read this
message
> after you have reached about page 300.
>
>
>
>
> monster. He calls it a "Lurk" any of you reading RJ or this NG know that
> Lurk is another names for Myddraal. Goodkinds characters mock the name
Lurk
> saying it sound like it was from a children's book. That is kind of low
on
> Goodkinds part, seeing as how all of his books in that series (with the
> exception of Wizard's First Rule) copy RJ's in once aspect or another.
Here
> is a short list I have compiled:
>
by
> their leader "Caharin" (hmmm, can you say Aiel?)
> A massive army from an ancient land attacking
> A group of women dedicated to the Creator, with a dark group dedicated to
> the Keeper. (Black Ajah anyone?)
> Leashes to control those that use magic
>
> I'm sure there are more, and i would welcome a discussion.
>
> "Til shade is gone, til water is gone,
> into the shadow with teeth barred,
> screaming defiance with the last breath
> to spit in sightblinder's eye on the final day"
>
You forgot one: males using magic or "Power" are considered dangerous and
must be "gentled" so they won't go mad and die.... headaches, etc.
I've read GK's books, and superficially enjoyed them (except all the
detailed rape and s&m descriptions... there are ways of saying what's
happening without a play-by-play), but they have been going downhill with
each volume. And the similarities to RJ's books are just too much...
<relurking...>
Scott C. Swalwell
news:8hm7bs$3p0$1...@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu...
> I have read nearly ever fantasy series there is - and I love Goodkind.
>
> 10 reasons why GK is better than RJ.
<snip reasons of varying intelligence>
> 5. GK writes stories for a more adult oriented audience. The books, if
> written into a screenplay would be rated pg13 or R at best.
Increased vulgarity, sex, and violence = Mature = Better!
> The author
> doesn't use simple obviousness to entertain the audience. (Refer to
> question 3 - there are plenty of examples where it is obvious Rand is the
> dragon reborn - before the 3rd book. Does it really take 3 books to get
to
> that conclusion?)
Maybe you figured it out. They had to put it in the title before I figured
out who he was.
> 6. What happened to RJ's cool looking cover art after book 7?
<snicker>
<...>
> 8. Dragon's exist in GK's book.
They also apparently own GK's book.
<snip remaining reasons>
I don't disagree with all these reasons, but I couldn't get past the
Wizard's First Rule, especially when my sister told me they don't get any
better.
--
Scott C. Swalwell, Esq.
"Taurus: (April. 20--May 20)
The presence of Mercury in your sign indicates that this will be a good week
for you, but the presence of mercury in your tap water says otherwise."
Lloyd Schumner Sr., Retired Machinist and A.A.P.B.-Certified Astrologer, The
Onion, http://www.onion.com
John S. Novak, III
>Speaking of Goodkind, I've only started reading fantasy a few years ago and
>would like to know if Goodkind would be recommended. I see his books everywhere
>but I'm not sure if I should pick him up or not.
Goodkind is an absolutely talentless hack. Leaving aside discussions
of whether or not he is copying plot elements from anyone, his writing
is so execrably bad that even using it as toilet paper would be a
massive insult to my body.
I read the first volume of that godawful tripe of his with the same
horrified fascination as I might watch someone being pulled out of a
crumpled car wreck by the Jaws of Life-- in multiple pieces. "How
much worse could this possibly get?" I wondered often and, "This
_must_ be as bad as it gets!"
It didn't stop descending to new depths in literary atrocity until the
very last page.
It is the archetypical book Not To Read.
Nothing I've heard convinces me it ever gets any better in following
volumes.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
John S. Novak, III
>I would definately recommend Goodkind, especially the "Sword of Truth"
>series. Like Jordan's series, it is still in progress, but unlike Jordan's
>series, you can wait for the next book.
For about a thousand years, as far as I'm concerned.
John S. Novak, III
<r.se...@m.cc.utah.edu> wrote:
>I have read nearly ever fantasy series there is - and I love Goodkind.
>10 reasons why GK is better than RJ.
GK? GoodKind? How about TK for Terry Goodkind?
At any rate, one reason why Goodkind is not worthy of consideration
for any merit:
Quasi-medievaloid society. Protagonist's brother (who we are not
supposed to know is in league with the Main Bad Guy, even though it is
transparently obvious from the very first page) is in some position of
authority in quasi-medievaloid little village on the ass end of
nowhere. And he gives a speech, wherein he acts and sounds _exactly_
like a 1990's political whore, imploring that the noble people of the
little village on the ass end of nowhere, "form a committee to
investigate the dangers of," (wait for it) "fire."
Yes.
Fire.
Yellowy-orange stuff what has been known to emanate from logs after
lightning strikes. Fire. Form a committe. Of quasi-medievaloid
ignorant jerkwads totally dependent on fire for their crafts and
manufactury, and who, even though they are quasi-medievaloid jerkwads,
should be fairly confident that they've mastered the art of not
burning their entire village down every three days.
This is the sort of idiotic drivel one gets when one picks up a
Goodkind novel. Committees to investigate the dangers of fucking
fire, for Chrissakes. This is stupidity best measured in decibels.
Never have I seen so much undeserving praise heaped on an author, nay,
not even since Caligula stuck a quill pen up his horse's ass and
declared him poet laureate.
Richard M. Boye'
Please, John, I think its time for the rant about how bad that first
book really was.
(People's Palace? Fire bad? Fire Bad! anyone?)
--
Richard M. Boye' * wa...@webspan.net
http://www.webspan.net/~waldo/ UIN:9021244
"Some men lead lives of quiet desperation.
My desperation makes a pathetic whining sound."
John S. Novak, III
>Please, John, I think its time for the rant about how bad that first
>book really was.
What, you mean a new one, or something dredged up from Deja News?
John S. Novak, III
>I take it from your previous response that you failed to grasp the reasoning
>behind the fight against fire.
No, I grasped it just fine.
That doesn't mean that it wasn't Stoopid, or that the idiot
townspeople milling around saying, "Well, yeah, we could maybe form a
committe to study the evils of fire...." aren't Stoopid, either.
I take it you haven't grasped the proper way to include context and
attributions when following up a post?
Willum
<Goodkind is blatantly ripping off Jordan>
> How can Goodkind mock or copying Jordan, when he has said many times that
he has
> never read Robert Jordan?
Yeah, and we all believe him don't we? Could it be that the reason he has
_many_ times denied reading Jordan is that people keep pointing out to him
the startling similarities between Jordan's work and his?
--
Willum,
"Fiat justitia et ruant coelli"
"Let justice be done though the heaven's fall"
-William Watson 1602.
Willum
<mr_whi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8hlh8p$t17$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<numerous similarities between SoT and tWoT>
> You know those are pretty superficial, and it isn't like Jordan was the
> guy who thought all those premises up. They probably just have some
> pretty similar source material.
Yeah, it's called tWoT.
Minime8183
>10 reasons why GK is better than RJ.
>1. RJ is wordy. It takes him 3 pages to describe a simple scenario. This
>is why his books are so long, and not much is getting accomplished.
Thats because RJ actually immerses you into the world by showing you detail.
>2. Rand is going mad with the power. How many times do I need to read this
>in each book?
It shows suspenseand impending doom. Take what you want from it but I don't
mind it at all.
>3. Prophesies in GK are as abstract as Jordan, difficult to understand, and
>more believable than RJ's.
I like RJ's because his are more poetic like the Prophecy of the Dark.
>4. The odd pronunciation in RJ's books. If I wanted to read a language
>other than English, I would pick up a copy in the other languages I am
>already fluent in.
I'm guessing you don't like Tolkien.
>5. GK writes stories for a more adult oriented audience. The books, if
>written into a screenplay would be rated pg13 or R at best.
Uhh..Dumai's Wells?
>6. What happened to RJ's cool looking cover art after book 7?
Not even gonna go there.
>7. Richard's story and background - while similar to Rand - are much more
>interesting than Rand's story overall.
He was a woods guide. Whoopdeedo.
>8. Dragon's exist in GK's book.
Dragon's may exist in RJ's too. We don't know.
>9. There are more religious overtones in GK's book.
They pray to the Creator every five seconds and the Whitecloaks practically
worship the Creator.
>10. There is a realistic love relationship in GK's book. Character's just
>don't simply fall in love when they first see each other as with most other
>fantasy books.
As soon as Richard saw Kahlan he knew he loved her.
I like Goodkind too even though I haven't read the entire series, but to say
that he's better than RJ is an overstatement.
Aaron Hosek
"Laziness: life's a journey, not a destination. So stop running"-despair.com
Brad Simmerman
Willum
> I take it from your previous response that you failed to grasp the
reasoning
> behind the fight against fire.
A word of advice Brad, don't snip the attributions at the top. When you
snip the attributions (ie John S. Novak, III wrote), anyone reading your
post by itself has no idea what you are talking about, or who you are
addressing with your comments.
HTH.
Oleg Ozerov
Randy K. Secrist wrote in message <8hm7bs$3p0$1...@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu>...
>I have read nearly ever fantasy series there is - and I love Goodkind.
>
>1. RJ is wordy. It takes him 3 pages to describe a simple scenario. This
>is why his books are so long, and not much is getting accomplished.
Goodkind's scenario? You mean that magic spell that Richard is going to
incant in the end that is going to solve _all_ of the book's problems? Now,
that can be written in 3 pages altogether. And everything in the books is so
painfully obvious. No mystery lasts for longer than 50 pages.
>2. Rand is going mad with the power. How many times do I need to read
this
>in each book? Will there ever be a resolution, or destruction of Rand? -
>or is RJ just looking to stretch the series and make more $$$?
Whatever else, Goodkind is the one more likely to seem as he is only trying
to make more money. I don't think that's just it, but nonetheless. He puts
out the books faster, there's little connection between them plotwise.
>3. Prophesies in GK are as abstract as Jordan, difficult to understand,
and
>more believable than RJ's. After reading prophesy after prophesy in
Jordan,
>you begin to feel like none of them matter since much of what he writes is
>either not touching that prophecy, or the fulfillment thereof is too
obvious
>to be believable.
I actually liked how the prophecies' working was explained by TG better than
by RJ. The system, I mean. The forks, the fact that the true prophecy is an
image and not the words, that kind of stuff.
>4. The odd pronunciation in RJ's books. If I wanted to read a language
>other than English, I would pick up a copy in the other languages I am
>already fluent in.
And Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander is your typical Saxon name... And, for one, I
don't really care how RJ says this or that should be pronounced. I read it
as I read it, in most cases I'm probably wrong, but who cares? And what is
it going to change whether you say Mirdrail or Myrdrah-ahl? And, besides, as
far as I can tell, "odd pronunciation" stuff is akin to ye Olde English,
idinit?
>5. GK writes stories for a more adult oriented audience. The books, if
>written into a screenplay would be rated pg13 or R at best. The author
>doesn't use simple obviousness to entertain the audience. (Refer to
>question 3 - there are plenty of examples where it is obvious Rand is the
>dragon reborn - before the 3rd book. Does it really take 3 books to get to
>that conclusion?)
He doesn't use simple obviousness??! Obviousness is his middle name there
for crying out loud. What is not obvious in the SOT?
>7. Richard's story and background - while similar to Rand - are much more
>interesting than Rand's story overall. Especially his relationship to
Zedd.
That's arguable in the highest. Although, I'll admit that the absence of a
wise older male character is somewhat regrettable in the WOT. However, the
problem with Zedd is that he dissapears on the second page and comes back
right a page before the grand deus ex machina ending. He is a neat
character, yet he's never on the screen.
>8. Dragon's exist in GK's book.
So? Bringing up the existence of dragons as a distinguishing feature of a
fantasy book borders on pathetic.
And speaking about the dragons what happened to that only one that we
happened to see in the SOT, She was a part of what book 3? And then
completely dissappeared, not a word about her.
>9. There are more religious overtones in GK's book.
And what's good about that again?
>10. There is a realistic love relationship in GK's book. Character's just
>don't simply fall in love when they first see each other as with most other
>fantasy books.
Realistic? Now this one really cracks me up. Richard and Kahlan's
relationship is the most idillic one there ever was.
- Oh, love you so much.
- No, I love you more.
- Oh, my love, how great it is that we love each other so!
What I want to say to that is: Shut up!!
>
>While I love GK, I also still like RJ. Having read all 8 of RJ's books - I
>will continue to purchase and read new books. I would like to know the
>outcome of the series. I do like some things over GK. Look for that list
>later.
I've read TG and I enjoyed it. Not nearly as much as I enjoy the WOT, but I
did. It's "light reading". Not complicated, easy to figure out. Only once I
settled that there's never going to be any logical sense in those books did
I start to just enjoy reading it for the heck of it.
O.
Danil
> "Well, yeah, we could maybe form a committe to study the evils
> of fire...."
"Do people want fire that can be fitted nasally?"
Danil OneEn
Donal K. Fellows
D. C. Kalen <nos...@nothanks.com> wrote:
> -- Dan, who doesn't think Jordan is a cheap, thieving hack, or Goodkind
> either (regardless of what one may otherwise think of his books)
I think that Goodkind is a cheap hack, but that has nothing to do with
the presence or absence of plot elements, and everything to do with
the fact that his books simply aren't very good. His predilection for
deus ex machina endings is particularly annoying. <sigh> He must
have started with the biggest arse in creation, he's pulled so much
out of it...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ fell...@cs.man.ac.uk
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <jeffre...@scriptics.com>
Johan Gustafsson
cenot...@aol.com (Cenotaph99) writes:
> Speaking of Goodkind, I've only started reading fantasy a few years ago and
> would like to know if Goodkind would be recommended. I see his books everywhere
> but I'm not sure if I should pick him up or not.
I don't think you should. Goodkind sucks. There's really no nicer way to put
it.
> krista - who delurked a while ago but never has anything good to contribute.
Don't worry, it'll come.
--
Johan Gustafsson *** e98...@efd.lth.se
Are you a bad enough dude to rescue the President?
Dave Rothgery
>>are much more interesting than Rand's story overall.
>>Especially his relationship to Zedd.
>
>That's arguable in the highest. Although, I'll admit that the
>absence of a wise older male character is somewhat regrettable
>in the WOT.
Thom Merrillin. Lan Mandragoran. Elyas Machera. Aglemar Jagad.
Rhuarc. Gareth Byrne. Devram Bashere.
--
Dave Rothgery
drot...@myrealbox.com
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
mr_whi...@my-deja.com
"Willum" <wjc...@corplink.com.au> wrote:
>
> <mr_whi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8hlh8p$t17$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> <numerous similarities between SoT and tWoT>
>
> > You know those are pretty superficial, and it isn't like Jordan was
the
> > guy who thought all those premises up. They probably just have some
> > pretty similar source material.
>
> Yeah, it's called tWoT.
>
Also Jordan makes no bones about the fact he's gotten everything by
rehashing existing myths and legends into new form. Accept it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mr_whi...@my-deja.com
<snip Novak going totaly Novak on TG>
> > It is the archetypical book Not To Read.
> > Nothing I've heard convinces me it ever gets any better in following
> > volumes.
>
> Please, John, I think its time for the rant about how bad that first
> book really was.
>
> (People's Palace? Fire bad? Fire Bad! anyone?)
>
> --
You know, tEotW didn't do tWoT many favors either.
Paul Raj Khangure
: series, you can wait for the next book. By that I mean with Goodkind's
: series, there is not a lot to remember between books and not a lot of
: referencing to previous books etc.
Yeah, Goodkind hasn't quite mastered subtle foreshadowing yet, and can't
even remember what he's written before. He's too afraid to reference
previous books incase he talks about the Aes Sedai, Forsaken or Aiel
accidentally.
Paul Raj Khangure
--
I stayed up all last night playing poker with tarot cards.
I got a full house and four people died. - Stephen Wright.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
steve...@bigfoot.com
>Randy K. Secrist wrote:
>>8. Dragon's exist in GK's book.
>Dragon's may exist in RJ's too. We don't know.
In fact, there's at least one. And he's reborn!
Even if he is a bit of a dumb toss occasionally ...
--
Steve Kroon
Krazy Kat
thusly:
And what color should we make the wheel?
Krazy Kat
---
I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace,
that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a
Congress.
Thom Jeffries
news:8hm7bs$3p0$1...@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu...
> I have read nearly ever fantasy series there is - and I love Goodkind.
>
> 10 reasons why GK is better than RJ.
> 1. RJ is wordy. It takes him 3 pages to describe a simple scenario.
This
> is why his books are so long, and not much is getting accomplished.
Umm.. you want us to believe you are masterful enough with
literature to critique it, but you are turned off by too many words?
> 2. Rand is going mad with the power. How many times do I need to read
this
> in each book? Will there ever be a resolution, or destruction of Rand? -
> or is RJ just looking to stretch the series and make more $$$?
Rand's madness is integral to the story. Will he be sane enough to defeat
the DO? Or will he go mad and destroy things like his previous incarnation?
Or both? It's fairly obvious that the resolution to these questions lay at
the
heart of the plot, and thus we won't find out until the end.
And there are a lot of reasons for RJ to stretch the series other than $$$,
as in, oh, to write a good ending to a good series?
> 3. Prophesies in GK are as abstract as Jordan, difficult to understand,
and
> more believable than RJ's. After reading prophesy after prophesy in
Jordan,
> you begin to feel like none of them matter since much of what he writes is
> either not touching that prophecy, or the fulfillment thereof is too
obvious
> to be believable.
So you want stories that revolve around some central prophecy all the time?
How boring. Notice that RJ doesn't write a supplement titled 'The Prophecies
of the Dragon' for us. If he did, clever folks would figure out the
storyline
from the monster prophecy beforehand, and then not really be surprised
at its fulfillment. Bits and pieces of it give us clues, but not the whole
story.
> 4. The odd pronunciation in RJ's books. If I wanted to read a language
> other than English, I would pick up a copy in the other languages I am
> already fluent in.
Now you're a literary critic who dislikes tough words? It must be the extra
apostraphes RJ keeps throwing in. Just think, if RJ didn't use apostraphes,
those words you don't like would be even LONGER! If that were the case,
I'd be on your side for this argument.
> 5. GK writes stories for a more adult oriented audience. The books, if
> written into a screenplay would be rated pg13 or R at best. The author
> doesn't use simple obviousness to entertain the audience. (Refer to
> question 3 - there are plenty of examples where it is obvious Rand is the
> dragon reborn - before the 3rd book. Does it really take 3 books to get
to
> that conclusion?)
Again, Rand's role in the story is the story. If Rand doesn't do what he's
supposed to do, their world is toast, regardless of Perrin, Mat, the AS,
etc.
Focusing on Rand, his status as the Dragon Reborn, his battles to conquer
the fear of what he is, his battles with those trying to stop him from being
what he is; these are all intrgral to the tale.
As for the rest of 'obvious' things you are referring to, do you mean
violence and sex? If so, I have no idea where you're coming from on this.
RJ doesn't shy away from violence in particular, but he doesn't dwell on it
either. I would agree that TK has more explicit sexual and violent
activities,
and thus the audience targeted should be more adult. However, RJ targets
an adult audience through the depth he puts in the story, and details that
he drops for discerning readers to find. While mildly stimulating to read
about the tribal chick shaking her naked rear at Richard in the village
where
she was a prisoner, I'd prefer to read the clues that lead me to believe
Taim
is Demandred in disguise.
> 6. What happened to RJ's cool looking cover art after book 7?
I doubt RJ has much say in this. Hell, I don't know who has say in
this matter. They must be daft to have completely ignored the public
outcry against DS.
And what are you smoking to make you think the art was cool BEFORE
book 7?
> 7. Richard's story and background - while similar to Rand - are much more
> interesting than Rand's story overall. Especially his relationship to
Zedd.
Hmm. I'd have to say no. Rand and Richard both grew up in backwaters
and then found out that they are more powerful than they ever thought
possible. That's about it for similarities.
As far as the differences between Rand and Richard, think again on the
role Rand is filling. He believes that lots of nasty things are in store for
him,
just like all the nasty things that he's had to face throughout his career
as the
Dragon. Richard OTOH, knows he has powers, but he doesn't believe his
death is at the end of it. Richard gets to have a problem, takes the
responsibilty
for fixing it, deals with it (with difficulty usually), gets caught in some
trap inherent
in the solution, has a epiphanous moment that allows him to escape the trap,
then saves the day. He then always tries to settle down with Kahlan, but
ends up
in another mess (doh!). Then the next book starts.
> 8. Dragon's exist in GK's book.
Gosh, that's superficial.
Counterpoint of equal intelligence: Grolms exist in RJ's books.
> 9. There are more religious overtones in GK's book.
So? Religious overtones a book does not make.
Besides the fact that there are plenty of religous overtones in RJ, maybe
not
as many as TK, but still enough for 'relgious overtone discussions (TM)'.
> 10. There is a realistic love relationship in GK's book. Character's
just
> don't simply fall in love when they first see each other as with most
other
> fantasy books.
Well, a point that has some validity! RJ knows men/women relationships
on a normal basis, but I must agree that his when two characters are fond
of each other, it just sort of happens. It's strange, but I wouldn't say it
really
detracts from the tale. I don't understand your complaint about it though,
since
your number 1 reason is that RJ is too wordy. If he expounded on the love
interest between characters, things would only get longer.
> While I love GK, I also still like RJ. Having read all 8 of RJ's books -
I
> will continue to purchase and read new books. I would like to know the
> outcome of the series. I do like some things over GK. Look for that list
> later.
Cool. I look forward to it.
> Rand
Ack, change your screen name man. Unless your name is Rand, of course.
Thom Jeffries, and yes, my name really is Thom.
D. C. Kalen
Donal K. Fellows <fell...@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> D. C. Kalen <nos...@nothanks.com> wrote:
> > -- Dan, who doesn't think Jordan is a cheap, thieving hack, or Goodkind
> > either (regardless of what one may otherwise think of his books)
>
> I think that Goodkind is a cheap hack, but that has nothing to do with
> the presence or absence of plot elements, and everything to do with
> the fact that his books simply aren't very good. His predilection for
> deus ex machina endings is particularly annoying. <sigh> He must
> have started with the biggest arse in creation, he's pulled so much
> out of it...
>
the idea that he was stealing plot elements wholesale from RJ. An
accusation I have seen many people make about various authors based on no
credible evidence whatsoever.
And no, I don't consider similarity of plot elements to be credible
evidence. If that were so, 90%+ of all authors of fiction would, by
definition, be Cheap, Thieving Hacks.
-- Dan
Simon Cullen
<mr_whi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ho5n5$rv9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> You know, tEotW didn't do tWoT many favors either.
Yes, but Magician's First Rule was probably the best book that Goodkind
wrote. Though it is horrifying to think so.
--
Simon Cullen
My perfecion is only marred by the people who surround me
Randy K. Secrist
I thought it would spark some controversy - but not that much. I enjoy all
the responses. And have plenty of counterpoints. :)
I'll post a more clarified point in another post later (after I get DSL up
at home :) ), and add the reasons I think RJ is better than TGK. Some of
you undoubtedly will find some things may seem to contradict my other post -
which is true since I didn't articulate it well. I will attempt again to do
so in a new post. Also - ideas are dynamic. When articulation is the goal
I have found that more time is required to do so. Regrettably I only spent
about 10 min in the initial 10 reason post. Many of your responses are well
articulated - much more than my initial. RJ does have some definite
strengths over TGK, but TGK still ranks up there with RJ. See you again in
a few days.
Randy (Rand) Secrist
P.S. - In response to this:
> Hmm. I'd have to say no. Rand and Richard both grew up in backwaters
> and then found out that they are more powerful than they ever thought
> possible. That's about it for similarities.
> As far as the differences between Rand and Richard, think again on the
> role Rand is filling. He believes that lots of nasty things are in store
for
> him,
> just like all the nasty things that he's had to face throughout his career
> as the
> Dragon. Richard OTOH, knows he has powers, but he doesn't believe his
> death is at the end of it. Richard gets to have a problem, takes the
> responsibilty
> for fixing it, deals with it (with difficulty usually), gets caught in
some
> trap inherent
> in the solution, has a epiphanous moment that allows him to escape the
trap,
> then saves the day. He then always tries to settle down with Kahlan, but
> ends up
> in another mess (doh!). Then the next book starts.
This is a nice reminder how similar the two series are. Richard also knows
that many nasty things are in store for him. He also has trouble dealing
with his heritage, and his new powers. In fact he hates what he is for a
long time - but the message is conveyed in a much shorter span than RJ. If
I recall correctly - Richard figures out who he is in Wizards First Rule.
Next in SOT he begins to deal with it, and is pretty much over it by the
next book. Is this too short? Of course not. RJ however is much longer,
and conveys the same message - but ends up sort of assuming that Rand deals
with it through his insanity. Once Rand begins to go nuts in the "Dragon
Reborn" and makes that long track south toward the sword - we loose sight of
what is really going on up there in his head since we don't understand half
of Lews Therin motives. This makes it difficult to assess the psychological
motive behind Rand's character, and the eventual logical path that Lews
Therin is taking to shape Rand (the backwater boy) into the Dragon Reborn.
As with love in RJ's books, things seemingly "just happen" quite often with
no clear sense of direction.
Thus - for an equally ill-stated counterpoint -
Rand makes a series of spontaneous events, believes he has killed the Dark
One, or some other major victory and then the next book starts.
Because these events are linked throughout the 8 books - (whereas TGK sums
up more of each individual piece by the end of each book, and relates a
smaller part to the next), it makes it difficult to remember what shape Rand
is taking between the long period of time between RJ's books. However
instead of reminding us what those character determining facets are - we are
constantly reminded that he is going mad with the power. This we know - but
does not tell us HOW he is going mad with the power. WHY does he become
more and more suspicious? Is that Lew's Therin's character?
RJ hints toward many things without actually saying them - and this is what
makes him more eluding and a better literary writer than TGK. Often TGK is
too forward with his objectives - but he hides them well enough within each
individual book. The main prophecy isn't fulfilled until you read 500+
pages (in TGK.) This is a good demarcation of their individual styles.
BTW - when talking about being a literary master - it helps if YOUR SPELLING
of words like responsibility is actually correct. Otherwise large words are
rather ithimatious.
"Thom Jeffries" <th...@ffonline.zzn.com> wrote in message
news:8hob0j$k3q$1...@news.ysu.edu...
> "Randy K. Secrist" <r.se...@m.cc.utah.edu> wrote in message
> news:8hm7bs$3p0$1...@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu...
> > I have read nearly ever fantasy series there is - and I love Goodkind.
> >
> > 10 reasons why GK is better than RJ.
>
> > 1. RJ is wordy. It takes him 3 pages to describe a simple scenario.
> This
> > is why his books are so long, and not much is getting accomplished.
>
> Umm.. you want us to believe you are masterful enough with
> literature to critique it, but you are turned off by too many words?
>
> > 2. Rand is going mad with the power. How many times do I need to read
> this
> > in each book? Will there ever be a resolution, or destruction of
Randy K. Secrist
I thought it would spark some controversy - but not that much. I enjoy all
the responses. And have plenty of counterpoints. :)
I'll post a more clarified point in another post later (after I get DSL up
at home :) ), and add the reasons I think RJ is better than TGK. Some of
you undoubtedly will find some things may seem to contradict my other post -
which is true since I didn't articulate it well. I will attempt again to do
so in a new post. Also - ideas are dynamic. When articulation is the goal
I have found that more time is required to do so. Regrettably I only spent
about 10 min in the initial 10 reason post. Many of your responses are well
articulated - much more than my initial. RJ does have some definite
strengths over TGK, but TGK still ranks up there with RJ. See you again in
a few days.
Randy (Rand) Secrist
P.S. - In response to this:
> Hmm. I'd have to say no. Rand and Richard both grew up in backwaters
> and then found out that they are more powerful than they ever thought
> possible. That's about it for similarities.
> As far as the differences between Rand and Richard, think again on the
> role Rand is filling. He believes that lots of nasty things are in store
for
> him,
> just like all the nasty things that he's had to face throughout his career
> as the
> Dragon. Richard OTOH, knows he has powers, but he doesn't believe his
> death is at the end of it. Richard gets to have a problem, takes the
> responsibilty
> for fixing it, deals with it (with difficulty usually), gets caught in
some
> trap inherent
> in the solution, has a epiphanous moment that allows him to escape the
trap,
> then saves the day. He then always tries to settle down with Kahlan, but
> ends up
> in another mess (doh!). Then the next book starts.
This is a nice reminder how similar the two series are. Richard also knows
> "Randy K. Secrist" <r.se...@m.cc.utah.edu> wrote in message
> news:8hm7bs$3p0$1...@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu...
> > I have read nearly ever fantasy series there is - and I love Goodkind.
> >
> > 10 reasons why GK is better than RJ.
>
> > 1. RJ is wordy. It takes him 3 pages to describe a simple scenario.
> This
> > is why his books are so long, and not much is getting accomplished.
>
> Umm.. you want us to believe you are masterful enough with
> literature to critique it, but you are turned off by too many words?
>
> > 2. Rand is going mad with the power. How many times do I need to read
> this
> > in each book? Will there ever be a resolution, or destruction of
rou...@my-deja.com
something simillar in two books, wich is by the way not big part of the story
and claim the book been copied. And very often this is not honest, onesided
arguments. Everybody see where Godkind "borrowed" idea, but do not whant to
see where Jordan "borrowed" his
> A warrior tribe that is promised to be returned to their ancient homeland by
> their leader "Caharin" (hmmm, can you say Aiel?)
Hmmm, Can you say freeman in Dune
> A massive army from an ancient land attacking
Now that is really original idea! :)
> A group of women dedicated to the Creator
How they called this women in Dune Benesergary , I forgot spelling.
> with a dark group dedicated to the Keeper. (Black Ajah anyone?)
Very logical, if nobody help Bad side why to have need for help Good side?
> Leashes to control those that use magic
Nothing original about collars. Slave did wear collars. "On Ieash like a dog"
It really obvious logically after that why to put collar on magical creature.
> White cloaks and Blood of the Fold.
Nothing new here. History has a lot of fanatics hunting and burning witches
or people of other believes. Crusaders? Izuits? There were a lot of secret
societes which White Cloaks remind me of.
Lets see what else similar can be found adn I heard in previous discussions.
- Saidin/Saidar (male/female) with Addictive/Subtructive magic.
I just wonder where ancient sighn of Aes-Sedai come from? :)
- Hero starts from low (sheperd, woodguide) and raised high
Eddings?
Is all this stuf is really important???
Rouslan
Randy K. Secrist
This along with everything Novak states doesn't even have enough validity to
argue with on a logical basis.
I can easily say the RJ just sucks and there is no easier way to put it.
I can easily say that RJ doesn't contribue anything and shouldn't even be
wiped across my ass.
Doing so only shows I have my own head up that ass.
Let me help you out stevekroon...here is a quote from Novak.
"Quasi-medievaloid society. Protagonist's brother (who we are not
supposed to know is in league with the Main Bad Guy, even though it is
transparently obvious from the very first page) is in some position of
authority in quasi-medievaloid little village on the ass end of
nowhere. And he gives a speech, wherein he acts and sounds _exactly_
like a 1990's political whore, imploring that the noble people of the
little village on the ass end of nowhere, "form a committee to
investigate the dangers of," (wait for it) "fire."
At least someone figured out that TGK's work can be related to the 1990's.
Symbolically it doesn't matter what the dangers are in the written sense,
"political whores" of today spout the same stupid things under different
names. The whole premise of this book is that people believe what they hear
blindly (Wizards first rule.) How many of you have ignored this rule
without even tasting the experience first? This whole topic has generated a
lot of converation - obviously TGK has some valid points in his book. To
ignore it, or blindly shout at it points to your level of facist mentality.
(This doesn't mean you have to agree that TGK is a good author - but you
have to at least read the book and explain WHY it sucks.)
"Johan Gustafsson" <e98...@efd.lth.se> wrote in message
news:8hnqm6$5fk$1...@news.lth.se...
rou...@my-deja.com
> Speaking of Goodkind, I've only started reading fantasy a few years ago and
> would like to know if Goodkind would be recommended. I see his books everywhere
> but I'm not sure if I should pick him up or not.
My friend recomded Goodkind to me, and I really glad. My 3 friends (plus
wives) enjoy TG after I in turn recommend this series to them.
There is just not many good fantasy books around. For almost every book you
will find somebody who don't like it. I think it's too bad if you missed the
book you may enjoy because somebody else don't like it. Try to read it for
yourself, what you have to lose anyway?
Rouslan.
Steven 'Aych'
"D. C. Kalen" <nos...@nothanks.com> wrote:
> For our next exercise, let us discuss how Jordan is a cheap, thieving
hack
> for having a main character who is an orphan of royal blood (of which
he is,
> initially, totally unaware), raised on a farm by another family, and
who,
> destined for greatness, power & etc., continually whines "Why me?"
through
> half the series. Eddings, anyone?
Is it just me, or does that sound a lot like Superman?
Steven 'Aych'
Christine
,Snip surrounding argument>
> (This doesn't mean you have to agree that TGK is a good author - but
you
> have to at least read the book and explain WHY it sucks.)
One of the reasons for forums which discuss authors and books is so
that people who do not wish to read annoyingly bad tripe do not have
to. They can get the opinions of people who have read the works and
decide whether or not to risk it. I may not agree with everything
Novak says on many subjects, but one thing I do know from reading his
posts is that he has a good understanding of what makes good writing
good.
Why you think someone has to read more than one book by an author to
determine an opinion about that author is beyond me.
Christine
B. Elgin
cenot...@aol.com (Cenotaph99) wrote:
> Speaking of Goodkind, I've only started reading fantasy a few years
ago and
> would like to know if Goodkind would be recommended. I see his books
everywhere
> but I'm not sure if I should pick him up or not.
>
</lurk>
Krista,
I will try to give the perspective of someone who read at least
parts of both series and still isn't thrilled with Goodkind.
I read _Wizard's First Rule_ a year or so after it came out and
thought that the book showed a lot of potential. I would have
ranked the first three-quarters up with Robert Salvatore's earliest
books. The plot was thin at points, many aspects were a bit painful
in the obvious category, but the characters could be engaging and
the story was very charming in it's simplicity with hints of
unfolding depth. The last quarter of the book left me thinking that
Goodkind has some odd interests and went into more detail than I
needed on a lot of grim topics. On the other hand, I had previously
waded through L. Ron Hubbard's _Mission Earth_ cycle that year and in
comparison Goodkind was downright cheerful and probable. I decided
that he was an author with some potential.
I then read the second book. More time had passed since Hubbard,
so my tolerance of sadism had gone down. I liked many aspects of the
book but started to get an odd sense of RJ deja-vu. The story was
decent, but the plot still fit in the category that I would usually
call "first book of a series". Many aspects that I had liked in the
first book were scarcer, while aspects I didn't like (like sadistic
torture of characters) went up. I chalked it up as a less good book.
Middles of trilogies often drag, so I moved on.
I then read the third book. Long story short: I didn't like it.
It was the worst of the four I have read. Deus ex machina endings
three books in a row was grating me so I decided to stop reading the
series.
One year passed and I forgot my resolution. I got the next
book. A few dozen pages in I remembered it, but finished the book
anyway. Since then I have not picked up another Goodkind book. I
will loan my books to anyone who wants to try him with a hefty
warning that I don't recommend him.
Problems: Goodkind is very episodic in his books. It is like
a movie series more than a book series. Each book is an end.
Period. There is more cruelty and thorough descriptions of torture
than I need in a book to make me empathise with characters. The
writing style never loses the feel of an author's first book to me.
Many aspects of the story a very creative and interesting, but they
are quickly pushed into standard fantasy roles and lose their
uniqueness. People behave in ways that seem melodramatic, while the
story is not in any way a melodrama.
Advice: If you are still curious, pick up the first book from
your library. If you read it and really like it, keep going. If
you read it and think it has potential only, stop there. You will
probably be displeased with the rest of the series.
<lurk>
--
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk. Feel free to ignore."
Sarah Coit
> I don't understand this kind of arguments every time I see them. You found
> something simillar in two books, wich is by the way not big part of the story
> and claim the book been copied. And very often this is not honest, onesided
> arguments. Everybody see where Godkind "borrowed" idea, but do not whant to
> see where Jordan "borrowed" his
[snip]
Actually, this group takes delight in cataloging all of the sources drawn
upon in tWoT. If you flip through the faq, you'll find that posters
have traced the origins of much of RJ's writing in everything from
Nordic mythology to Arthurian legend to pulp fiction (not the movie).
(Although that would be interesting). We *know* where RJ gets his
stuff, and we *know* that most of it isn't original. We do, however,
like the way that RJ takes old elements and blends them into something
new and interesting.
Goodkind, on the other hand, appears to take *all of the same* elements
and repeats them in his novels. The problem isn't that he's borrowing
stuff from RJ or from fantasy in general: a lot of authors have done
that recently and turned out halfway decent fantasy. It's that he
appears to be borrowing *everything*, poorly disguising it, and
regurgitating it wholesale. At one point he even mentions one of
the male wizards channeling a flow of some elemental power (I think
it was Air). And which poster quit reading the series once Goodkind
brought in a horse named "Bella"?
-Sarah
Randy K. Secrist
Simple enough.
"Christine" <ade...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:taS%4.8711$9y3....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Randy K. Secrist
fantasy genre - you weren't meant to like fantasy genre in the first
place...
"Maia" <a900...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote in message
news:393FFAB9...@unet.univie.ac.at...
> rou...@my-deja.com schrieb:
> >
> > > Speaking of Goodkind, I've only started reading fantasy a few years
ago and
> > > would like to know if Goodkind would be recommended. I see his books
everywhere
> > > but I'm not sure if I should pick him up or not.
> >
> > My friend recomded Goodkind to me, and I really glad. My 3 friends (plus
> > wives) enjoy TG after I in turn recommend this series to them.
>
> Well, I know dozens of people who found Goodkind pretty horrible...
>
> > There is just not many good fantasy books around.
>
> That just isn't true. There is quite a lot of good and OK fantasy
> books and series around, especially for those with an access to
> second-hand English bookstores or libraries... But even if one is
> mostly reduced to buying books which are in print (like me), there
> still is a lot to choose from.
>
> > For almost every book you
> > will find somebody who don't like it. I think it's too bad if you missed
the
> > book you may enjoy because somebody else don't like it. Try to read it
for
> > yourself, what you have to lose anyway?
>
> Time, money and appreciation of fantasy genre?
Maia
Christine
>
> "Christine" <ade...@geocities.com> wrote in message
> news:taS%4.8711$9y3....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Randy K. Secrist" <r.se...@m.cc.utah.edu> wrote in message
> > news:8honj5$t94$1...@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu...
> >
> >
> > > (This doesn't mean you have to agree that TGK is a good author -
but
> > you
> > > have to at least read the book and explain WHY it sucks.)
> >
> > One of the reasons for forums which discuss authors and books is
so
> > that people who do not wish to read annoyingly bad tripe do not
have
> > to. They can get the opinions of people who have read the works
and
> > decide whether or not to risk it. I may not agree with everything
> > Novak says on many subjects, but one thing I do know from reading
his
> > posts is that he has a good understanding of what makes good
writing
> > good.
> >
> > Why you think someone has to read more than one book by an author
to
> > determine an opinion about that author is beyond me.
> >
> Simple enough.
First, please learn to place your comments below those you are
replying to. I have fixed it for you in this reply to make it more
readable.
Second, the fact that the story has not ended is completely separate
from whether or not the author is a good writer. If you are suggesting
that one can not determine before the end of a story whether or not it
is being told well, you are mistaken. Most people will be fair enough
to read an entire book on the principle of giving the benefit of the
doubt (ie It can't ALL be this bad.) but if the first book in a series
is well below par I can see nothing that justifies the assertion that
one should continue reading.
Christine
Thom Jeffries
<snip comparisons of Rand/Richard>
> BTW - when talking about being a literary master - it helps if YOUR
SPELLING
> of words like responsibility is actually correct. Otherwise large words
are
> rather ithimatious.
>
Ack. You got me. Humble apologies all around to those offended.
*deep bow with so many floruishes it's pathetic*
PS: Damn spellchecker wasn't on...grumble...
Thom Jeffries
Maia
> "Maia" <a900...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote in message
> news:393FFAB9...@unet.univie.ac.at...
> > rou...@my-deja.com schrieb:
> > > sorry, the original attribution was lost
> If one book breaks your bank
Why buy something you wouldn't like instead of something you would?
Besides it is not one fat book, but a series of 5(6?) thereof with no
end in sight.
> and causes you to loose your appreciation of fantasy genre -
Certainly, many who have low opinion of fantasy genre just never got
to read right books, because of their initial disapointment. It is
commonly thought that fantasy must be something about goblins and
dragons and that Brooks is the epitome of the genre, you know...
>you weren't meant to like fantasy genre in the first place...
Never fear for me;). Reading "Wizard's First Rule" and "Stone of
Tears" and skimming through "Blood of the Fold" and "Temple of the
Winds" didn't turn me away from fantasy. The chicken monsters were too
much for me, though...
However, IIRC the original poster said that s/he wasn't much into
fantasy yet, so I won't direct him/her to something I consider to be
bad, especially since there is lots of better stuff.
Wading through slush can turn one away from any genre imaginable.
Thom Jeffries
"D. C. Kalen" <nos...@nothanks.com> wrote in message
news:MGP%4.600$wh2....@sea-read.news.verio.net...
>
> And no, I don't consider similarity of plot elements to be credible
> evidence. If that were so, 90%+ of all authors of fiction would, by
> definition, be Cheap, Thieving Hacks.
But of those 90%+ of all authors of fiction that are, by definition,
Cheap, Thieving Hacks, how many would you say copied the
plot elements in most details other than name alone?
Thom Jeffries
Oleg Ozerov
Dave Rothgery wrote in message
<05477860...@usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com>...
>>>are much more interesting than Rand's story overall.
>>>Especially his relationship to Zedd.
>>
>>absence of a wise older male character is somewhat regrettable
>>in the WOT.
>
>Thom Merrillin. Lan Mandragoran. Elyas Machera. Aglemar Jagad.
>Rhuarc. Gareth Byrne. Devram Bashere.
I meant a grandfather-type character. Lan, Elyas aren't such. Bryne and
Jagad we see only occasionally and they have very little to do with Rand.
Bashere is close, but not quite. He acts pretty much just as a military
counsel, not as a grandfather toward Rand.
Thom is closer to that. However, he's still pretty removed from Rand and
from the boys.
O.
Randy K. Secrist
praise. I wouldn't be advertising how impressed I was with that blather.
"Lara Beaton" <larab...@yahoo.comSPAMCATCHER> wrote in message
news:39400590...@news.btinternet.com...
> On 07 Jun 2000 21:08:35 EDT, j...@news.greennet.net (John S. Novak,
> III) wrote:
>
> >Never have I seen so much undeserving praise heaped on an author, nay,
> >not even since Caligula stuck a quill pen up his horse's ass and
> >declared him poet laureate.
>
> .sigged!
>
> John, you really have raised the rant into a new art form, haven't
> you?
>
> --
> Lara Beaton (remove SPAMCATCHER to reply)
> "Je devrai a partir, parce que ma grandmere est flambe."
Lara Beaton
Oleg Ozerov
rou...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8hoost$bnu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I don't understand this kind of arguments every time I see them. You found
>something simillar in two books, wich is by the way not big part of the
story
>and claim the book been copied. And very often this is not honest, onesided
>arguments. Everybody see where Godkind "borrowed" idea, but do not whant to
>see where Jordan "borrowed" his
>
by
>> their leader "Caharin" (hmmm, can you say Aiel?)
>Hmmm, Can you say freeman in Dune
The point here is not the similarity between the Aiel and MMukamba-bamba or
whoever they were, but between _Caharin_ and _Car'a'carn_. What Paul
Atreides was called in Dune is not even close. Moreover, the similarity is
not just in the name but in that Rand(Richard) is not only the
Dragon(Seeker) of the mainland but a Car'a'carn(Caharin) of a warrior
people.
>
>> A massive army from an ancient land attacking
>Now that is really original idea! :)
>
>> A group of women dedicated to the Creator
>How they called this women in Dune Benesergary , I forgot spelling.
Exactly. Bene Gesserit in Dune, Aes Sedai in WOT, just Sisters in SOT.
>
>> with a dark group dedicated to the Keeper. (Black Ajah anyone?)
>Very logical, if nobody help Bad side why to have need for help Good side?
It's not just that. They are called _Sisters of the Dark_. Doesn't sound
like _Black Sisters_ at all.
>
>> Leashes to control those that use magic
>Nothing original about collars. Slave did wear collars. "On Ieash like a
dog"
>It really obvious logically after that why to put collar on magical
creature.
>
>> White cloaks and Blood of the Fold.
>
>Nothing new here. History has a lot of fanatics hunting and burning witches
>or people of other believes. Crusaders? Izuits? There were a lot of secret
>societes which White Cloaks remind me of.
Did all of them wear white cloaks? Did crusaders hate wizards?
>
>Lets see what else similar can be found adn I heard in previous
discussions.
>- Saidin/Saidar (male/female) with Addictive/Subtructive magic.
> I just wonder where ancient sighn of Aes-Sedai come from? :)
Now, on that nobody commented.
>
>- Hero starts from low (sheperd, woodguide) and raised high
>Eddings?
That either.
>
>Is all this stuf is really important???
A single coincidence wouldn't excite any suspicion. There's too many of
these _coincidences_. Too many names that sound the same, too many societies
organized in a similar way, too many ideas too close.
Show me 2-3 more fantasy books that have as many similarities to RJ, then
I'll concede the point. I've read a few fantasy books and while there are
always things that are common, nowhere did I find just this many.
O.
Preacher
great master of his art until after he has passed away from
among us.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Lara Beaton
>You know, tEotW didn't do tWoT many favors either.
Well, Jordan's saving grace was that he got better. Plus, evne Lan,
who says about twenty words all together in tEotW is a far more
complex and interesting character (i.e. non-predictable from the
moment you meet them) than anyone in _Wizards First Rule_.
Scott C. Swalwell
> All i got to say is that not always do the people understand a
> great master of his art until after he has passed away from
> among us.
I think it's a little harsh to say Goodkind should die, but we might
appreciate him more.
--
Scott C. Swalwell, Esq.
"They say love is blind,
I don't think you're blind."
- They Might Be Giants
John S. Novak, III
>Actually, this group takes delight in cataloging all of the sources drawn
>upon in tWoT. If you flip through the faq, you'll find that posters
>have traced the origins of much of RJ's writing in everything from
>Nordic mythology to Arthurian legend to pulp fiction (not the movie).
>(Although that would be interesting). We *know* where RJ gets his
>stuff, and we *know* that most of it isn't original. We do, however,
>like the way that RJ takes old elements and blends them into something
>new and interesting.
Source borrowing, or even some degree of general plot borrowing, is
not necessarily pernicious in itself. Good grief, people, a great
deal of Shakespeare's plays had their plots taken from classical
sources. It's not like the theme of star crossed lovers was original
to the Bard, or anything. And likewise, a great number of modern
works are reworking of Shakesperian themes.
I stated (long before Jordan spoke about it himself) that the first
half of tEotW had a _lot_ of plot elements stitched in from the Lord
of the Rings-- and I maintain that there are more connections than
Jordan probably wants to admit. Reading only the first book, I had a
great fear that the whole series was going to be a straightforward
rewrite.
(To summarize, the Fades were very similar, functionally and
stylistically, to the Nazgul, for the first book or two. The
bildingsroman motif is another obvious connection, right down to the
tobacco industry society the kids are taken from. Lan and Moiraine
were inversions of Aragorn and Gandalf, respectively. The Ways were
stylically and functionally similar to the Mines of Moria. The
middle of the book was dominated by a split in he group caused by a
sudden attack of Orcs, er, Trollocs.)
However, even for these similarities, there was enough material both
new and enjoyable (my personal examples are Moiraine's retelling of the
fall of Manetheren, and Agelmar's telling of the fall of Malkier) that
I decided to read the next. And there, I discovered happily that the
similarites diminshed rapidly.
There can be virtue in a retelling, if the retelling is particularly
good. I rag on Brooks and McKiernan because I don't think their
blatant rip-offs of Tolkien have any real virtues to them at all.
That said, however, I do think that taking too much source material
from any one location (as Goodkind seems to be doing with Jordan,
though I haven't actually read the Goodkind books where that becomes
an issue) particularly a location that's been published recently (or
that isn't even finished yet...) to be fairly unsavory.
Especially in a fantasy or SF genre where one really does have the
latitude to file off the serial numbers sufficiently and to breathe
some originality into a scenario.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
Mr. Whitecloak
larab...@yahoo.comSPAMCATCHER (Lara Beaton) wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:05:52 GMT, mr_whi...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >You know, tEotW didn't do tWoT many favors either.
>
> Well, Jordan's saving grace was that he got better. Plus, evne Lan,
> who says about twenty words all together in tEotW is a far more
> complex and interesting character (i.e. non-predictable from the
> moment you meet them) than anyone in _Wizards First Rule_.
>
Well, apples and oranges. I though _Stone of Tears_ was top notch
writing as well, but recent books are getting weaker.
And as for Jordan getting better- heh, I read tEotW in eighth grade and
consined Jordan to just another JRRT hack. A few years later I was in a
bookstore and read the prolouge to tGH. Whoah.
--
Mr. Whitecloak
Hurray for Our Side!
Willum
<mr_whi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ho5dk$rld$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <393e...@newsin2.apacinternet.com.au>,
> "Willum" <wjc...@corplink.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > <mr_whi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8hlh8p$t17$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > <numerous similarities between SoT and tWoT>
> >
> > > You know those are pretty superficial, and it isn't like Jordan was
> the
> > > guy who thought all those premises up. They probably just have some
> > > pretty similar source material.
> >
> > Yeah, it's called tWoT.
> >
> I asked Goodkind about it once at a booksigning, he's never read tWoT.
Yeah, so he says. I could care less what he says about it when so many of
the similarities are glaringly obvious.
Just off the top of my head you've got:
sisters of light and dark= AS and BA
Miswraith (sp?) cloak= warders cloak
sword of truth= callandor
collars to control magicians= a'dam
long lost tribe of deadly fighters whom Richard seeks out=Aiel
male magicians are hated/feared= fear of male channelars
There are plenty of others. Ofcourse all authors borrow from eachother,
history, theology and so on, but personally Goodkind's work reeks of
imitation. Even then, it might not be so bad if he had enough originality
to spice it up, but he doesn't.
When I started reading it I just couldn't believe the number of almost
identical WoT plot elements and objects. Combine this with his aweful
writing, and I couldn't make it past the third book, and getting that far
was like having one's fingernails pulled.
To some, Goodkind is the best thing since sliced bread. For others he's
just a hack. For me, he's a hack and a thief.
To each his own.
--
Willum,
"Fiat justitia et ruant coelli"
"Let justice be done though the heaven's fall"
-William Watson 1602.
Willum
Oleg Ozerov <Ozzypti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:SWT%4.996$iy.8...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
<similarities between TG's and RJ's work>
> A single coincidence wouldn't excite any suspicion. There's too many of
> these _coincidences_. Too many names that sound the same, too many
societies
> organized in a similar way, too many ideas too close.
> Show me 2-3 more fantasy books that have as many similarities to RJ, then
> I'll concede the point. I've read a few fantasy books and while there
are
> always things that are common, nowhere did I find just this many.
Exactly.
That's the crux of it. There are just too many similarities for them to be
coincidental. I could buy 3 or 4 really close similarities, but when
virtually every major plot element has a readily identifiable counterpart
in RJ's work (often with very similar names), I wonder, with some
justification, just how coincidental it could possibly be.
Brad Simmerman
Steven 'Aych' <dudep...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8hoqtk$dhi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Hey, what about "Green Angel Tower" By Tad Williams, good enough book but...
Oh yeah, anyone see "Spaceballs"?
Brad Simmerman
<rou...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8hopc9$c64$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
I think it's too bad if you missed the
> book you may enjoy because somebody else don't like it. Try to read it for
> yourself, what you have to lose anyway?
>
>
Good call on that one, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Brad Simmerman
Oleg Ozerov
Greg McConnell wrote in message <394083AA...@hotmail.com>...
[snip attempt to start a gun control thread]
>Hey, guns are just as safe as fire if in the right hands, and
>just as dangerous if in the wrong hands. People fight about gun
>control every day.
This is a completely plot-driven comparison meant to invite anti-gun
comments. People can live without guns in civilian hands, both individually
and as a society. A medieval society ain't gonna make it far without fire,
which is what Novak was pointing out.
O.
Greg McConnell
> Quasi-medievaloid society. Protagonist's brother (who we are not
> supposed to know is in league with the Main Bad Guy, even though it is
> transparently obvious from the very first page) is in some position of
> authority in quasi-medievaloid little village on the ass end of
> nowhere. And he gives a speech, wherein he acts and sounds _exactly_
> like a 1990's political whore, imploring that the noble people of the
> little village on the ass end of nowhere, "form a committee to
> investigate the dangers of," (wait for it) "fire."
>
> Yes.
>
> Fire.
>
> Yellowy-orange stuff what has been known to emanate from logs after
> lightning strikes. Fire. Form a committe. Of quasi-medievaloid
> ignorant jerkwads totally dependent on fire for their crafts and
> manufactury, and who, even though they are quasi-medievaloid jerkwads,
> should be fairly confident that they've mastered the art of not
> burning their entire village down every three days.
>
> This is the sort of idiotic drivel one gets when one picks up a
> Goodkind novel. Committees to investigate the dangers of fucking
> fire, for Chrissakes. This is stupidity best measured in decibels.
Some people think the same thing about those fighting for more
gun control. And why not? We need more of it! Why, just the
other day, I saw a gun walking down the street all by itself, and
later on my very own shotgun tried to shoot me! What is the
world coming to? Why, we need to have a form a committee and
discuss the danger of guns!
Donal K. Fellows
Greg McConnell <fred_me...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Some people think the same thing about those fighting for more
> gun control. And why not? We need more of it! Why, just the
> other day, I saw a gun walking down the street all by itself, and
> later on my very own shotgun tried to shoot me! What is the
> world coming to? Why, we need to have a form a committee and
> discuss the danger of guns!
Yeah, all guns must be on a leash, and should be destroyed (at the
owners expense) if they foul a public space and the owner doesn't
promptly clean it up! And lets have electronic tagging of guns so
that the owners can't deny responsibility if their gun is caught
making a public nuisance of itself; it would have the added benefit
of allowing guns that do manage to wander off on their own to be
returned to their owners with a minimum of fuss...
Donal (or was that gnus?)
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ fell...@cs.man.ac.uk
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <jeffre...@scriptics.com>
Donal K. Fellows
Thom Jeffries <th...@ffonline.zzn.com> wrote:
> "Randy K. Secrist" <r.se...@m.cc.utah.edu> wrote:
>> 9. There are more religious overtones in GK's book.
>
> So? Religious overtones a book does not make. Besides the fact that
> there are plenty of religous overtones in RJ, maybe not as many as
> TK, but still enough for 'relgious overtone discussions (TM)'.
And neither of them handle the religious side of things all that
effectively, IMHO, compared with Guy Gavriel Kay or (dare I say it?)
Eddings, hack that he is. Which just goes to show.
Donal.
Donal K. Fellows
> idiots. This along with everything Novak states doesn't even have
> enough validity to argue with on a logical basis.
Next thing you know, you're going to flame him for not being humble...
Kenneth G. Cavness
Greg McConnell <fred_me...@hotmail.com> wrote...
[a committee to abolish the use of fire]
> > This is the sort of idiotic drivel one gets when one picks up a
> > Goodkind novel. Committees to investigate the dangers of fucking
> > fire, for Chrissakes. This is stupidity best measured in decibels.
>
>
> Some people think the same thing about those fighting for more
> gun control. And why not? We need more of it! Why, just the
> other day, I saw a gun walking down the street all by itself, and
> later on my very own shotgun tried to shoot me! What is the
> world coming to? Why, we need to have a form a committee and
> discuss the danger of guns!
>
> Hey, guns are just as safe as fire if in the right hands, and
> just as dangerous if in the wrong hands. People fight about gun
> control every day.
Non sequitur much?
Trollbait much?
Got *plonk*?
--
Kenneth G. Cavness
http://stargoat.dynip.com/ (usually)
Kenneth G. Cavness
>
> Dave Rothgery wrote in message
> <05477860...@usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com>...
> >"Oleg Ozerov" <Ozzypti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>Randy K. Secrist wrote in message
> >>>7. Richard's story and background - while similar to Rand -
> >>>are much more interesting than Rand's story overall.
> >>>Especially his relationship to Zedd.
> >>
> >>That's arguable in the highest. Although, I'll admit that the
> >>absence of a wise older male character is somewhat regrettable
> >>in the WOT.
> >
> >Thom Merrillin. Lan Mandragoran. Elyas Machera. Aglemar Jagad.
> >Rhuarc. Gareth Byrne. Devram Bashere.
>
>
> I meant a grandfather-type character.
[snip]
Thom Merrillin. Rhuarc. Gareth Byrne.
James Williams
"John S. Novak, III" wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:44:00 -0400, Sarah Coit <sc...@hsph.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> >Actually, this group takes delight in cataloging all of the sources drawn
> >upon in tWoT. If you flip through the faq, you'll find that posters
> >have traced the origins of much of RJ's writing in everything from
> >Nordic mythology to Arthurian legend to pulp fiction (not the movie).
> >(Although that would be interesting). We *know* where RJ gets his
> >stuff, and we *know* that most of it isn't original. We do, however,
> >like the way that RJ takes old elements and blends them into something
> >new and interesting.
>
> Source borrowing, or even some degree of general plot borrowing, is
> not necessarily pernicious in itself. Good grief, people, a great
> deal of Shakespeare's plays had their plots taken from classical
> sources. It's not like the theme of star crossed lovers was original
> to the Bard, or anything. And likewise, a great number of modern
> works are reworking of Shakesperian themes.
(snip similarities of LotR and EotW)
To support the above argument, I just want to mention the comparisons people have
made of Rand's royal birth that is unknown to him at the beginning of the story.
They have mentioned Superman, Spaceballs, and Tad Williams' "Memory, Sorrow, and
Thorn." There is, of course, also Goodkind's Sword of Truth. And C.S. Lewis
used it in one of the Narnia books. George Lucas too, in a roundabout way. Oh,
and David Eddings. Come to think of it, George R. R. Martin is almost certainly
heading that way with "The Song of Ice and Fire."
It is possibly the most commonly used fantasy idea, started (I think) by T.H.
White's "The Once and Future King." I wouldn't be surprised if T.H. White got it
from some other place. Ironically, one of the stories that does not use it is
Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings, " which is arguably the source of more modern
fantasy cliches than any other fantasy.
Another poster mentioned Goodkind's use of a character pseudo-channeling an
elemental force. Similarities of the description aside, let me suggest a trip to
your local library, where you will look up books on medieval myth & magic. You
will likely find descriptions of the four elements that people once thought made
everything - Air, Fire, Earth, and Water. Sound familiar? Oh, and there was
often considered to be a fifth element, called Spirit, or Ether, or Aethyr...this
stuff goes waaaaaaaay back. It does not begin with a Bruce Willis movie.
While you are there, look up the Tuatha De Danaan (sp?). I think that one's in
the Wot FAQ, by the way.
Watch "The Matrix" for a movie that makes a story (a good one, IMO) out of a
whole lot of purposely blatant borrowing from two dozen sources.
Consider the fact that Tolkien fought in a World War and then reread "The Lord of
the Rings." (Note - As I understand it, Tolkien always denied the connection, but
it must have affected him. Literary borrowing isn't always conscious.)
There is some truth to the saying "there is no such thing as an original idea."
I expect authors to borrow ideas from other sources. What I don't like is when
an author...
a) Does not make something that they borrow their own. They should put some
spin on it that hasn't been done before. As far as I can tell, Jordan has no
problem with this.
b) Borrows from public figures' lives and makes it obvious. In Goodkind's
latest, SotF, there is a character
named Bertrand Chanboor, a politician who loves nothing but himself and power,
and who regularly cheats on his wife, Hildemara. Hildemara knows about the
cheating, but doesn't care because hanging around gives her power and
recognition. Goodkind changed the names, but not the initials. I expect an
author to try to teach me something, put a moral in the story, whatever...but
this is just being tacky and preachy. A court of law might call it libel.
For the record, b) can be done well. I liked "Primary Colors."
James B. Williams
The Great Gray Skwid
> "Lara Beaton" <larab...@yahoo.comSPAMCATCHER> wrote in message
> news:39400590...@news.btinternet.com...
> > III) wrote:
> > >Never have I seen so much undeserving praise heaped on an author, nay,
> > >not even since Caligula stuck a quill pen up his horse's ass and
> > >declared him poet laureate.
> > you?
> praise.
<snort>
And wherefore dost thou assert thyself so, to display to this world thine
own worldly lacks?
> I wouldn't be advertising how impressed I was with that blather.
I'm not impressed by someone who is so clearly unable to recognize a
clever turn of phrase.
--
| | |\ | | | ) Theudegisklos "Skwid" Sweinbrothar
|/| |\ |/ | |X| ( SKWID, Vulture V4 pilot ( The Humblest Mollusc
| | | | | | | ) Evan "Skwid" Langlinais ) on the Net
"Cthulhu is my codpiece" http://skwid.home.texas.net
Maia
>
> "John S. Novak, III" wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:44:00 -0400, Sarah Coit <sc...@hsph.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Source borrowing, or even some degree of general plot borrowing, is
> > not necessarily pernicious in itself. Good grief, people, a great
> > deal of Shakespeare's plays had their plots taken from classical
> > sources. It's not like the theme of star crossed lovers was original
> > to the Bard, or anything. And likewise, a great number of modern
> > works are reworking of Shakesperian themes.
>
> (snip similarities of LotR and EotW)
>
> To support the above argument, I just want to mention the comparisons people have
> made of Rand's royal birth that is unknown to him at the beginning of the story.
> They have mentioned Superman, Spaceballs, and Tad Williams' "Memory, Sorrow, and
> Thorn." There is, of course, also Goodkind's Sword of Truth. And C.S. Lewis
> used it in one of the Narnia books. George Lucas too, in a roundabout way. Oh,
> and David Eddings. Come to think of it, George R. R. Martin is almost certainly
> heading that way with "The Song of Ice and Fire."
> It is possibly the most commonly used fantasy idea, started (I think) by T.H.
> White's "The Once and Future King." I wouldn't be surprised if T.H. White got it
> from some other place.
That one was a cliche when the world was young... Roman and Greek
myths are full of sons of the gods/kings who are intially unaware of
their descent. Heracles, to name just the most well-known. Of course,
in some cases it didn't work so well (i.e. Eudipus, etc).
T.H. White's book is in great part a sort of commentary on Sir Thomas
Malory's "Morte d'Arthur", which was in turn based on folk tales and
legends about King Arthur. White is a brilliant example of someone
making the borrowed stuff "his own" (as you said in your original
message and I accidentially snipped) as it should be done.
I really hope that Martin doesn't head in the "bastard as a great
ruler/saviour" direction, too. He delights in putting cliches and
expected developments on their ear.
To think about it, Williams' Simon wasn't much of a saviour either, he
was kind of always underfoot, but actually his involvement made the
things worse. It was very ironic how he and not someone more deserving
became a king in the end.
Still, for some reason I much more less tolerant towards fantasy
writers borrowing from the recent stuff than from the older one.
Mr. Whitecloak
<snip else>
If anything, you're pointing out just how much of a thief RJ is.
Adam Benedict Canning
Danil wrote:
>
> John S. Novak, III says...
> > "Well, yeah, we could maybe form a committe to study the evils
> > of fire...."
>
> "Do people want fire that can be fitted nasally?"
"We have decided to revalue teh leaf by burning down all the forests."
Adam
Aaron F. Bourque
<SNIP John's "Fire = BAD" BAD! thing>
>Some people think the same thing about those fighting for more
>gun control. And why not? We need more of it! Why, just the
>other day, I saw a gun walking down the street all by itself, and
>later on my very own shotgun tried to shoot me! What is the
>world coming to? Why, we need to have a form a committee and
>discuss the danger of guns!
That's just 'cause you mistreat your gun. You need to love it, and pet it, and
feed it, and clothe it, and hug it . . .
(Look at me, I'm the WB Yeti).
>Hey, guns are just as safe as fire if in the right hands, and
>just as dangerous if in the wrong hands. People fight about gun
>control every day.
Yeah. NEWSFLASH: Stupidity kills, full story at 11.
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
--
Being grown up all the time is only a sign of immaturity.
Come on, people! Grow up! Act stupid!
Aaron F. Bourque
>Thom Merrillin. Rhuarc. Gareth Byrne.
Well, you know what they say: "Thom fiddles while Gareth Byrnes."
And Rhuarc shakes his head and mutters, "Wetlanders."
Krazy Kat
thusly:
>Why do you think someone has to read more
>than one book by an author to determine an
>opinion about that author is beyond me.
Because otherwise good authors occasionally produce really awful books.
Frank Herbert (for example) is, in my opinion, quite good, but would you
get that impression if all you read by him was God-Emperor of Dune (I
can't imagine why someone would start in the middle of a series, but I
suspect such people exist)?
Krazy Kat
---
I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace,
that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a
Congress.
Christine
"Krazy Kat" <krazy...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2766-394...@storefull-297.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Before being dragged back to his/her/its padded cell, Christine
spake
> thusly:
>
> >Why do you think someone has to read more
> >than one book by an author to determine an
> >opinion about that author is beyond me.
>
> Because otherwise good authors occasionally produce really awful
books.
> Frank Herbert (for example) is, in my opinion, quite good, but would
you
> get that impression if all you read by him was God-Emperor of Dune
(I
> can't imagine why someone would start in the middle of a series, but
I
> suspect such people exist)?
Hmm. That's a good point.
Christine
Randy K. Secrist
"The Great Gray Skwid" <sk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.13aa9f76c...@news.gte.com...
Greg McConnell
> Non sequitur much?
>
> Trollbait much?
>
> Got *plonk*?
I didn't see it on here, but I read a response on Deja where it
was pointed out that we can live without guns, but the people in
those days _needed_ fire. Please understand that it was not my
intention to start a gun control thread, rather, I misunderstood
what Mr. Novak posted as saying "Saying that fire is dangerous is
just the stupidest thing I've ever heard! How can anyone say
that something is dangerous when it's totally harmless if used
properly" which I _did_ compare to a lot of gun control topics I
hear. I misunderstood, I apologize.
Randy K. Secrist
"Donal K. Fellows" <fell...@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8hqe5s$c2g$1...@m1.cs.man.ac.uk...
Chris Kollmann
> Naw - I have known many humble idiots through the years... :)
Hi there, how about you go read some new user FAQs and come back when
you've learned to snip sigs, trim posts, and place your reply below
quoted material? Maybe we'll pay attention to you if you learn to
operate your software without looking like a fool. In case it's not
clear, this is honest advice. Presentation matters here, just like in
the face to face world. Right now, your style is on par with the
squalling toddler infringing on the adult's dinner party. Expect to
be treated accordingly until you learn to write like an adult.
--
Christopher S. Kollmann
Virology G2 HMS
"Arr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress!"
David Chapman
news:08640444...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com...
> All i got to say is that not always do the people understand a
> great master of his art until after he has passed away from
> among us.
It's all very well to say that genius is never appreciated in its own time,
but the fact remains that drivel is never appreciated in *any* time. [1]
[1] Except in the UK charts for the last ten years, of course.
--
Do you think I don't know that you've come to steal the secret plans to my
new Interstellar Hydrocombustion Miracle Patented Microteflon Nuclear
Gamma-Strato Rocketship Plane Missile, which was 20 years in the making?
Well, I've never even heard of it - so you're barking up the wrong tree.
David Chapman
news:slrn8k0i3...@ts006d35.chi-il.concentric.net...
> However, even for these similarities, there was enough material both
> new and enjoyable (my personal examples are Moiraine's retelling of the
> fall of Manetheren, and Agelmar's telling of the fall of Malkier) that
> I decided to read the next.
Odd that you should describe these two stories as "new"; I always associated
them with the falls of the Lonely Mountain and Khazad-Dum respectively. The
former for style, the latter for end result.
Jim Millen
<r.se...@m.cc.utah.edu> laid the pearls before the swine thusly:
>And like yours is any better.
(Writing above quoted material. Again.)
<Peeve>
Will you please write under the quoted text? It is, of course, your
right not to do this. However, convention on this group at least is
to do so and doing otherwise will piss everbody off.
I would have thought that obvious seeing as nearly everybody else
posts in this manner, plus Christine has already told you.
</Peeve>
HAND!
Jim Millen, Impoverished Student
D. C. Kalen
B. Elgin <b.e...@att.net> wrote:
> In article cenot...@aol.com (Cenotaph99) wrote:
> > Speaking of Goodkind, I've only started reading fantasy a few years
> ago and
> > would like to know if Goodkind would be recommended. I see his books
> everywhere
> > but I'm not sure if I should pick him up or not.
> >
>
> </lurk>
> Krista,
> I will try to give the perspective of someone who read at least
> parts of both series and still isn't thrilled with Goodkind.
> I read _Wizard's First Rule_ a year or so after it came out and
> thought that the book showed a lot of potential. I would have
> ranked the first three-quarters up with Robert Salvatore's earliest
> books. The plot was thin at points, many aspects were a bit painful
> in the obvious category, but the characters could be engaging and
> the story was very charming in it's simplicity with hints of
> unfolding depth. The last quarter of the book left me thinking that
> Goodkind has some odd interests and went into more detail than I
> needed on a lot of grim topics. On the other hand, I had previously
> waded through L. Ron Hubbard's _Mission Earth_ cycle that year and in
> comparison Goodkind was downright cheerful and probable. I decided
> that he was an author with some potential.
> I then read the second book. More time had passed since Hubbard,
> so my tolerance of sadism had gone down. I liked many aspects of the
> book but started to get an odd sense of RJ deja-vu. The story was
> decent, but the plot still fit in the category that I would usually
> call "first book of a series". Many aspects that I had liked in the
> first book were scarcer, while aspects I didn't like (like sadistic
> torture of characters) went up. I chalked it up as a less good book.
> Middles of trilogies often drag, so I moved on.
> I then read the third book. Long story short: I didn't like it.
> It was the worst of the four I have read. Deus ex machina endings
> three books in a row was grating me so I decided to stop reading the
> series.
> One year passed and I forgot my resolution. I got the next
> book. A few dozen pages in I remembered it, but finished the book
> anyway. Since then I have not picked up another Goodkind book. I
> will loan my books to anyone who wants to try him with a hefty
> warning that I don't recommend him.
> Problems: Goodkind is very episodic in his books. It is like
> a movie series more than a book series. Each book is an end.
> Period. There is more cruelty and thorough descriptions of torture
> than I need in a book to make me empathise with characters. The
> writing style never loses the feel of an author's first book to me.
> Many aspects of the story a very creative and interesting, but they
> are quickly pushed into standard fantasy roles and lose their
> uniqueness. People behave in ways that seem melodramatic, while the
> story is not in any way a melodrama.
> Advice: If you are still curious, pick up the first book from
> your library. If you read it and really like it, keep going. If
> you read it and think it has potential only, stop there. You will
> probably be displeased with the rest of the series.
> <lurk>
This has to be the best, fairest, most well-written assessment of TG's SoT I
have yet read on this group. Of course, maybe I just think that because
your description matches my own experience fairly closely. Except for
having wasted my time on LRH. And since I didn't start reading WoT until
after I had read the first 2 or 3 SoT books, I ended up noticing the
similarities while reading WoT rather than the other way around.
Due to all the S&M crap in the latter part of WFR, I was reluctant to read
_Stone of Tears_ but ended up doing so anyway, hoping it wouldn't be as bad
(I got both via the SFBC and, while WFR had a "warning: explicit violence"
tag on its description, SoT did not). Needless to say, I was disappointed.
I decided not to bother with BoF, then forgot and read it anyway. And TotW.
I was so annoyed and disgusted by that point I tossed 'em all in the
dumpster and decided that if I ever had a moment of insanity and actually
decided to read Soul of the Fire, I'd check it out from the library. That
hasn't happened yet.
--Dan
Cenotaph99
Goodkind. I appreciate the feedback :) and I'm enjoying all the posts...
krista
ICQ# 53716885
"If all paths lead but to the grave then let us dance along our way" - Faith
and the Muse
D. C. Kalen
Thom Jeffries <th...@ffonline.zzn.com> wrote ...
>
> "D. C. Kalen" <nos...@nothanks.com> wrote in message...
>
> >
> > And no, I don't consider similarity of plot elements to be credible
> > evidence. If that were so, 90%+ of all authors of fiction would, by
> > definition, be Cheap, Thieving Hacks.
>
> But of those 90%+ of all authors of fiction that are, by definition,
> Cheap, Thieving Hacks, how many would you say copied the
> plot elements in most details other than name alone?
>
Well, you may have a point. I guess I'm just resistant to it for two
reasons:
(1) As I've said, I've seen this same attitude before when I used to read
the Tolkien NG. Terry Brooks was the usual whipping boy, but by no means
the only one. It sometimes seems as if people are just hunting for
similarities so they point and shout "Thief, thief!"
(2) I admit I also found there to be several parallels between the two
series. However, I read the first two (or three) Goodkind books before I
ever even read tEotW. And while I did note that Jordan had already written
several of his books before WFR first came out, I just did not expend a
great deal of thought wrt why there were all these parallels. There were
plenty of other reasons to be disgusted with WFR and its sequels, most
particularly his fixation on graphic sexualized violence and graphic
violence towards children.
-- Dan
The Great Gray Skwid
Reply text goes below the quoted text, and learn how to snip .sigs.
We leaned closer as Randy K. Secrist <r.se...@m.cc.utah.edu> whispered:
> "The Great Gray Skwid" <sk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.13aa9f76c...@news.gte.com...
> > We leaned closer as Randy K. Secrist <r.se...@m.cc.utah.edu> whispered:
> > > "Lara Beaton" <larab...@yahoo.comSPAMCATCHER> wrote in message
> > > news:39400590...@news.btinternet.com...
> > > > On 07 Jun 2000 21:08:35 EDT, j...@news.greennet.net (John S. Novak,
> > > > III) wrote:
> > > > >Never have I seen so much undeserving praise heaped on an author,
> nay,
> > > > >not even since Caligula stuck a quill pen up his horse's ass and
> > > > >declared him poet laureate.
> > > > John, you really have raised the rant into a new art form, haven't
> > > > you?
> > > He hath not read many books - or yea, he would have seen more
> undeserving
> > > praise.
> > <snort>
> > And wherefore dost thou assert thyself so, to display to this world thine
> > own worldly lacks?
> > > I wouldn't be advertising how impressed I was with that blather.
> > I'm not impressed by someone who is so clearly unable to recognize a
> > clever turn of phrase.
> And like yours is any better.
Any better than what? Than Novak's? I wasn't trying to one up
Novak...is that what you were trying to do? How sad.
Cenotaph99
>Certainly, many who have low opinion of fantasy genre just never got
>to read right books, because of their initial disapointment. It is
>commonly thought that fantasy must be something about goblins and
>dragons and that Brooks is the epitome of the genre, you know...
This is actually the reason I was turned off from fantasy in high school and am
now just getting into it. I picked up a few books back then, which I can't
remember now, that seemed juvenile and I was completely disappointed. Then
someone recommended the Dragon Bone Chair a few years ago and I became hooked
:)
I really like the Jordan series but there's a question I keep pondering. My
so-called boyfriend was the one who picked up tEotW in the first place which
was recommended to him. He doesn't like Jordan at all because he says "it's not
real fantasy." One of his arguments, much like another poster, was that there
were no dragons and monsters except Trollocs and he said they didn't count.
*boggle*
Since I went ahead and read the whole series, I tried to convert him but he
remains adamant, saying it's not what he expected and it's not true fantasy.
Being that I've only read a very small portion of fantasy besides Jordan
(Williams, Brooks, Tolkien...)Is Jordan that much different from other fantasy
works that someone who likes fantasy would not think that it's real fantasy? I
don't know if I'm posing this question right so I apologize in advance.