Fantasy Book Club discussion

Post here when you have finished.

Okay, I tried to read this book more than seven years ago, and I just couldn't finish it. I didn't even get to the infamous S&M stuff. I've just never seen such a clear example of plot-moving-character than WIZARD'S FIRST RULE.

It might seem silly, but the scene that was the last straw was when Richard and Kahlan are on the verge of kissing while sharing an apple (or some other fruit... I've slept a lot since then). They've said they're going to take things slow, not rush into the feelings they have for each other, so the GUY in this scene puts on the brakes. I'm sorry. What? Dude is alone with a smokin' hot babe, and he suddenly goes, "No, no... We should wait." I know it's a fantasy novel, but that just really stretches credibility. In all seriousness, there were plenty of moments leading up to that scene which smacked of plot-moving-character, but that was where my patience ended.

So even after making it 400 pages into that book, I was done. I've never felt the need to give it another try or to try any other Goodkind novel since then (yes, he made that bad of an impression on me). It's a shame, because Goodkind's writing style is very good. He just doesn't know how to let the characters move the story instead of forcing them to do things that are obviously out of character.

Hopefully, others here will enjoy the book far more than I did. Clearly, he's done something right, because he's got quite the following.

I don't read Goodkind anymore, but for different reasons. Later books it was more about him promoting his political views then story, or at least so it seemed to me.

I was so disappointed in this book when I finished it a couple years ago. I've heard the wide-ranging opinions, of course, and expected there to be more to discuss. It was just so simple and obvious and lacking in anything original. (My review if anyone wants the particulars.)

And I totally agree with Bill, plot reigned supreme and characters be damned. I'm a very character-driven reader, so that just doesn't work for me.

On a related note, part of my disappointment was that I was assured by a (usually reliable) reader-friend that I would enjoy the strong female character Kahlan Amnell. I'll be charitable and just say this was not the case.

I know a lot of people dislike the series, and thought the first book was the best in the series, with being okay at the best because it was more of traditional fantasy, unlike the rest having to deal with Goodkind's political view through Richard.

I actually enjoy the book and the series, but I think Goodkind needs to stop writing Sword of Truth. The series is finished, it is done. At the least he needs to write something else other than Sword of Truth first.

I read this book just a few months ago on the recommendations of friends both on Goodreads and in real life. I actually listened to it on audio. I could not like it, but not enough to stop reading it. I was interested in the plot overall, but I had two complaints. The first is that I thought it moved slowly--too slowly for me. However, this opinion might have been affected by the fact that I was listening and could not simply skip the endless real-time meal scenes. I also thought that the theme of "strength achieved by overcoming pain endured or inflicted upon others" was just too much for me. There were just too many scenes of someone enjoying pain for my taste. It's not that I'm appalled at encountering that stuff, but the scenes were sooooo long--I just wanted them over with. I felt as if the author was trying to get me to enjoy the pain as well, and, yuck.

Wizard's First Rule and the rest of the series, was actually one of my first introductions to adult fantasy, so I have a special attachment to this series. I first read Wizard's First Rule when I was about 16 or 17. It was an exciting read for me at the time full of adventure and I loved the characters. I'm not sure if I would feel the same if I reread it again now (since I read a lot more fantasy since then, which is probably better written), but I have good memories. I also enjoyed the rest of the series for the most part. Some books were better than others. I also agree though that I wish he had just stopped writing at the last book and not went on to write The Omen Machine, which I thought was terrible.

But yeah, since this is about Wizard's First Rule, it works fine just as a stand alone novel IMO. It's kind of extreme on the violence. For some reason that never bothered me back then, but it is pretty sick lol.

Wizards First Rule was a novel that I came by about a year ago when I watched the TV adaptation of the book series, Legend of the Seeker. I, and my English Teacher, decided to read this book together.

That being said, I LOVE a novel that is rich in its own unique world. This story exposes an entire universe that is rich in detail and very much paralleled by the demographic of the different races.

I disagree with the view that the story is plot driven rather than character driven, this entire book is simply an introduction TO the character that is Richard. The plot doesn't move the character, it moves in a way that allows the characters to express their nature. I believe, you would find, if you were continue the series, that Richard is very strong in his beliefs and the story is changed by Richards choices, for good or ill.

It was a very graphic and violent story, but I believe this is due to the parallel that Goodkind is making between Darken Rahl and Hitler with his extermination of a people.

I love Terry Goodkinds skill as a writer, particularly his ability to carry on multiple plot lines as the main characters separate. At one point he is able to carry on 4, rather detailed, journeys in different locations. I found him to be an entrancing author and I am glad I read his work rather than leaving it at the TV show.

Lindsey wrote: "I was so disappointed in this book when I finished it a couple years ago. I've heard the wide-ranging opinions, of course, and expected there to be more to discuss. It was just so simple and obvi..."

I read your review and I think that the reason you found issues with the world building being a need to know basis was because Goodkind has such a large and elaborate world created that it is much more effective to introduce you to the world through the journeys of the main characters through the many books.

Elise wrote: "Wizard's First Rule and the rest of the series, was actually one of my first introductions to adult fantasy, so I have a special attachment to this series. I first read Wizard's First Rule when I w..."

I share the same feelings as Elise. I read these books in my teen years, and I was just getting into fantasy. I thought they were great. I remember staying up all night to finish them.
I feel like I have outgrown them though as a fantasy reader, which is why I never ventured into a re-read of SOT, I want to preserve the wonderful memory I have of this series.
I think this is a great series for those who are new to fantasy and those who love overly dramatic plots.

I read this a few years ago, after tripping upon it at my library. I'd been reading fantasy for years and it sounded great.

I hated it. I actually read the next two or three in the series, since I kept hearing so many good things that I thought I MUST be missing something. I finally came to the conclusion that I was not.

I found the violence off-putting, to the extent that I just felt bruised while reading. Eventually I decided that if I wanted to be appalled and depressed, I'd just go turn on the network news and save my personal reading time for things that didn't make me feel sick.

Alycia, I completely agree. I also read the second book, sure that the first must just suffer from "first book" syndrome. Not so. The plot got a bit better but the increased violence, (view spoiler)[particularly the implied sexual violence, as Kahlan seemed unable to get in any situation where she was not in danger of being raped (hide spoiler)] seemed gratuitous and did not serve the plot or world-building well.

Gage wrote: "I read your review and I think that the reason you found issues with the world building being a need to know basis was because Goodkind has such a large and elaborate world created that it is much more effective to introduce you to the world through the journeys of the main characters through the many books."

Not at all. I've read plenty of books and series that do their world-building via the characters' wanderings. Other series manage to introduce cultures, places, and characters that are as yet unseen, even largely unknown by the characters themselves. This invites the reader to imagine the wider world and eventually lends context and complexity to the story; Wheel of Time is on the brain right now, so it springs to mind, but it is a good example of one such technique. As a reader, I want to be immersed in some level of detail that is not immediately (or ever) plot-critical, since a real person on a real journey would not only find out exactly what they need to know and nothing more.

Wizard's First Rule did none of that and I find such a limited perspective simple, not effective.

Alycia wrote: "I read this a few years ago, after tripping upon it at my library. I'd been reading fantasy for years and it sounded great.

I hated it. I actually read the next two or three in the series, since..."

LOL. Good choice.

Gage wrote: " Goodkind has such a large and elaborate world created that it is much more effective to introduce you to the world through the journeys of the main characters through the many books. "

Obviously I'm not Goodkind, but my impression is that he made up new lands with each book to make whatever point he had to make in the new book, at least in the first 4 or so books. It's possible that he had it all preplanned, but it didn't read that way to me.

I actually quite like this series. I don't have a particularly good reason one way or the other and I certainly wouldn't put them in league with GRRM or Erickson or any of the other more gritty or "grown up" fantasy out there, but they are a nice change of pace with entertaining plot lines. It doens't hurt that I like the characters too, whether I always agree with them or not. I guess sometimes I just like archetypal fantasy. That is, afterall, what attracted me to the genre in the first place. Refreshing and new can be really exciting...or a little bizarre. But archetype can be like slipping back into a comfortable pair of worn-in boots, or coming home for Christmas five years after moving out on your own - it can just feel like home.

I read a pretty wide range of stuff - most of it pretty good, some not so much. But occasionally, I seek the solace of black and white and that's when I come back to books and series' like this one.

...I guess it just depends on the mood and what you're after.

I enjoyed this book as well as the next three following it (Stone of Tears, Blood of the Fold, and Temple of the Winds), but after that, it was extremely difficult to read the series. It was just drowning in Goodkind's own political views (capitalism good, communism evil), and his writing became way too repetitive. There's one book where he recites the same oath about 10 times in a row, and he feels the need to explain everything, such as the effects of a Confessor's power, in each and every book as though people in book 7 haven't read the other 6.

I hated Kahlan and was rooting for Nicci to become the central female character (she was also a far more interesting and complex one). I also ended up hating Richard and his deus ex machina ability. Another poster called him the Goku of the fantasy world, and I agree. Whenever a situation became too difficult to overcome, he would all of a sudden manifest a new power or pull a sudden understanding out of his ass that would solve everything. Absolutely ridiculous.

I really enjoyed this first few books in the series when I read it 5 years ago. Since then I've become disenchanted with Goodkind. The ending to the series was horrible. I also dislike the fact that Richard could do no wrong, he was "perfect".

I really wanted to enjoy Wizard’s First Rule, and in some regards I did. However, I did not enjoy it nearly as much as I had hoped I would. In my opinion, two of the major downfalls of this book are, sadly, Richard and Kahlan. I could tell Goodkind intended for Richard to be a noble, clever hero. Sure, at times Richard is noble to at least an extent, but when he manages any ounce of cleverness it is usually by accident or already long overdue; in brief, I found him quite naive and a bit daft. As for Kahlan, it was obvious Goodkind meant for her to be an upstanding woman of sophistication and power. Indeed she is a high society woman with a rare gift, but her incessant sulking -- which at one point evolves into a whiny suicidal desire -- made me feel little to no respect for her.

I have to give Goodkind credit, though. Despites the faults I found in Wizard’s First Rule, Goodkind still managed to keep me reading. There were just enough twists and turns to keep me sufficiently intrigued and just enough fanciful elements to keep me entertained. At some point in the future I may try my hand at reading the rest of the books in this series, but they’re nowhere near the top of my to-be-read list.

For me, this book is full of tiresome repetitions. In addition to that Kahlan and Zed is using every absurd opportunity to hug someone, preferably Richard, if he is not close at hand, then each other. Oh and Kahlan is either crying or about to cry throughout the book and very few of these overly dramatic behavior is appropriate in most of the situations. These are the things that distracted me from the story every so often.

Book has an interesting enough story and well enough world building but the delivery makes it look worse than it is. With a strict editor who would mercilessly eliminate repetitions and excessive explanations by the characters on their motives, this would be a lovely book. And proper character development is called for, too. It is not consistent with the character that she grew up in solitude and didn't have any friends (other than other confessors) when Kahlan gives hugs even to the innkeeper's boy at every other page. And how about Richard deciding suddenly that he is head over hills in love with Kahlan?

(edit: and that "... smiling his/her little/secret/etc. smile" to be cut down, too. It gets annoying real fast.)

I seem to be in the minority, I enjoyed most of Goodkind's books, though there were scenes that dragged.

However for me the most appealing part of the series was the call to reason as the motive for one's actions. Far too many Fantasy series rely upon feelings and faith for making one's decisions and it was a breath of fresh air to see characters making rational decisions and showing how poisonous faith is as a rationale for making decisions.

Stublore wrote: "I seem to be in the minority, I enjoyed most of Goodkind's books, though there were scenes that dragged.

However for me the most appealing part of the series was the call to reason as the motive f..."

I agree with you. Plus I felt book seven, Pillars of Creation is refreshing that one gets to see the point of view from the enemy, which I think is rarely done.

well, to be honoust. I didn't read through the entire series. I got as far as book six or seven. After a while I started seeing the pattern, and I got really annoyed with the repetition of the books. Richard always losing Kahlan.
Wizards First Rule was something different though, I really loved this book. It's one one the better fantasy books I've read (of course, I haven't read THAT much, but still. I was impressed and I enjoyed it. That's all that matters.

Zeddicus was of course awesome!

As a long time reader of fantasy, these books landed somewhere in the middle of my adventure into the legend and lore. I have a different approach than some in reading through fantasy since the best books are the ones that keep me entertained. While there is certainly something to be said for language and how it is used within the written word, I do not harp on such traits unless the flaws become to big to ignore.

With that said, Wizards First Rule is a book I can get lost in and relive. It may not be master prose and there is repetition within Goodkind's narrative. The story itself, however, was different and captivating. The Mord-Sith quickly became some of my favorite characters, and the world he created was complex enough without being confusing. There was evidence of the Dungeons & Dragons character classes where good and evil crossed boundaries based on their alignment. And the magic system was also unique with a lot of different tweaks.

Simply put, this book and the series kept me entertained. There were 1-2 books that could have been kept on the shelf, but I still recommend this series to people who are beginning the journey into fantasy. And recommend it over WOT while recognizing it is not on the same level as Kvothe and Locke.

I enjoyed the first book in Goodkind's Sword of Truth series, Wizard's First Rule, enormously, enough so that I kept reading and thinking that he had to write another book that approached the first one at some time. My only (and big) regret is that Goodkind didn't leave Wizard's First Rule as a standalone. I don't think that any of the other books approach the first (2 and 3 were ok, but wow First Confessor was horrible).

A romantic Goodkind is not. He likes pairing up his characters, but misses the boat on the romance part. I loved Zedd, just adored him. He and Chad were my two favorite characters. I liked how Goodkind had characters interact with one another. I admit I was starting to pull for Nikki by the end, because she was humanized.

I remember that the end of this book had me on the edge of my seat, way up late, just needing to find out what happened. I have reread it a few times over the years and still enjoy it.

I started reading the SOT series when I was about 13 or 14 as well and I really enjoyed them at the time. As they became more political and "preach-y" I lost some of that enthusiasm. The last three books in the series, the Chainfire Trilogy, were probably some of my favorite.

Overall I think it wasn't terribly original, and it was drawn far too long (my favorite parts of the overall story, across the whole series, are separated by some pretty tiresome/tiring stretches of filler, I guess you would say).

And I think the only reason why I like the first one so much is because of when Kahlan enters the Con Dar and whoops some major ass. Actually, I think most of my favorite scenes throughout the various novels are the ones where she whoops ass.

Maybe I'll cut out all of those sections, glue them back together, and rename the resulting novel "Mother Confessor" and THAT will be my all-time favorite Goodkind novel.

The second book, Stone of Tears is free for the kindle right now.

http://www.amazon.com/Stone-Tears-Swo...

Looks like whatever errors the first reviewer was talking about on the kindle version have been corrected, but he hasn't updated his review.

I read the series about 5 years ago, and have mixed opinions on it. I found the books quite preachy. A few books in the series I could read quite happily and ignore this. But others such as pillers of creation I couldn't even get past th first 3 chapters. Goiodkinds latest work such as the omen machine, I couldn't even finish, to me it just seemed the word prophecy had been replaced with omen, and the same sort of story was going on that was in the original sot series. The law nines was just a story to me and was no
way in epic proportions as some of his original work. If he wanted to carry on writing the series he should have dropped Richard and kahlan where they were. And started a series on the first wizard wars.

I have read most of the series over the years and like most on her got bored with it, Also it is a little OTT with the red leather and whippy stuff and how the women are treated. Then there is the religion and politics....
I enjoyed them as separate books when I was a nipper but will probably never read them again. Or I may do it as a sort of experiment......

I wonder what readers would have said in the 90s or around the turn of the century. It did very well in terms of sales then. In the two decades since it was written, reader expectations and tastes have changed considerably. Its no surprise that readers now don't like it as much as readers did 20 years back.

Yes, SOT is an attempted Tolkien clone, much like Shannara. Goodkind also attempts a Gollum like character in Sam :-).

I read it recently and found it middling. But I thought it was fine for that day and age when it was written. Turning that into a large number of books, I think, ended up overextending the franchise.

Kathy wrote: "I have to admit that I abandoned this one. I just couldn't get into it, and when I got to the point of skimming through I found some scenes disturbing as a woman."

Yeah. I too find the treatment of women in some fantasy books unidimensional and stereotypical. More so in the modern books.

I find that people can't take reading rape scenes, making the book totally unreadable, and the hate of the characters who does the rape. Lord Foul's Bane or Dragonflight are another two example of books with rapes that people are not quite fond of.

Surely all the abuse against women is representative of the almost medieval setting within fantasy and the historical ill treatment of women in reality, rather than an author trying to be titillating or shocking for the sake? Most fantasy books I have read,including the above, that contain such scenes usually have a point to them.
As a woman I am of course opposed to rape and abuse but I think that it is realistic to include such bearing in mind the setting. It is rather unrealistic to suggest that in such times all women would stroll around in equality perfectly safe.

Bev wrote: "Surely all the abuse against women is representative of the almost medieval setting within fantasy and the historical ill treatment of women in reality, rather than an author trying to be titillati..."

I agree, but I know people that would disagree with that. Rape should never be use no matter what.

Kathy wrote: "Kevin wrote: "I find that people can't take reading rape scenes, making the book totally unreadable, and the hate of the characters who does the rape. Lord Foul's Bane or Dragonflight are another t..."

I don't remember either as I read the book 2 and half years ago, but someone mentioned it in a post in another group here on goodreads that there was a rape in the book last month. He was turned off by the rape.

Bev wrote: "Surely all the abuse against women is representative of the almost medieval setting within fantasy and the historical ill treatment of women in reality, rather than an author trying to be titillating or shocking for the sake? Most fantasy books I have read, including the above, that contain such scenes usually have a point to them.
As a woman I am of course opposed to rape and abuse but I think that it is realistic to include such bearing in mind the setting. It is rather unrealistic to suggest that in such times all women would stroll around in equality perfectly safe. "

Oh, let's trot these out for discussion's sake:
Sexism in Historical Fantasy (minor spoiler warnings for Game of Thrones)
Historically Authentic Sexism in Fantasy: Let's Unpack That
Your Default Narrative Settings Are Not Apolitical (minor spoilers for the current season of ABC's Once Upon a Time)
Levels of Reality (trigger warnings for brief discussion of rape)

I do agree that rape within a story can serve a purpose and that to ignore it is one component of allowing a heinous wrong to continue. However, I read this book and the next and found that (view spoiler)[Goodkind was pretty well incapable of putting his lead female character into a situation where she wasn't in danger of being raped. With all the other options available to heighten tension or create a sense of suspense, it's lazy that this is the only one chosen and it doesn't further any kind of discussion about sexual violence. It's also a disservice to male characters. (hide spoiler)]

It is unrealistic that all women would walk around equally safe in any culture, just as it would be unreal that men are all equally safe. But it's equally unrealistic that (view spoiler)[any one woman would be in constant danger of rape every time she's captured (hide spoiler)].