I am reading it now. Up to the last book. It is good but I liked Wheel of Time, the Dune saga, and most of all A Song of Ice and Fire series. The latter is on the top of me 'best' list.blalien said:
Poll: Best Book series of all time
- Thread starter spartan231490
- Start date
Well its not bad in the sense of I will never read one of the books again, I know other books of the same genre which suck, so I think its good but not great. Well so said I read the first book in 5 hours with some pauses in between, so I needed 4 hours maybe I missed something...
Made an account for this topic, as it's something I've debated several times with other people. So here we go.
All right, back in highschool I was a huge SoT fan. And I'll admit, I still consider some of the books to be among the best high fantasy I've read (though not the best). Goodkind is an excellent storyteller (most of the time), and and put a lot of work into making his characters believable and his world plausible. I especially liked the detail put into the politics and the rules of magic. Made it feel more real.
But partway through the series, something bad happened. As was noted earlier, it seems like Goodkind was hit over the head with a copy of Atlas Shrugged and became bound and determined to turn what was a pretty sweet fantasy series into a vehicle for Objectivism. Now, I don't have a problem with incorporating philosophy into fiction. And while I don't necessarily agree with all of Objectivism, there are parts of it I can get behind. And even the parts that I don't I could mark them up to "Agree to disagree" and still enjoy the story.
Unfortunately it seemed that the story took a backseat to the philosophy as the characters had a permanent soapbox attached to their feet. Page after page after page of speeches, over and over again, oftentimes about things that were already preached about. Goodkind has all the subtlety of a megaton hammer being bashed into your skull, and seems to like to take every opportunity to shove Objectivism down his readers throats. It eventually got to the point where you can skip large chunks of the chapters without missing anything important.
Non spoilerish issues, I also had a real beef with the Chainfire Trilogy, in that Goodkind felt the need to recap what's happened so far over and over again, as if we've forgotten everything we've read. This happened constantly, to the point where I was again skipping entire pages without missing anything important. I also noted that as the series went on, he must have had a falling out with his editor or something because I kept catching grammar and spelling errors.
Another beef: The Imperial Order. Or just about every bad guy. Is making them so blatantly evil that necessary? I'm all for a twisted villain, but that just was ridiculous. Did he notice that his heroes were starting to become somewhat unwholesome that he felt the need to make them seem good by making the villains absolutely repulsive? I mean, come on! The last book descended into cannibalism and had the IO's children using severed heads as soccer balls! One of the reasons why the Galactic Empire from Star Wars is so beloved is that despite definitely being the bad guys, they still had a lot of good going for them as a political government. It made things a little more morally ambiguous and therefore more interesting. But hey, if moral ambiguity isn't you thing, then at least don't make things ridiculous by making the villains feel like something Ask That Guy With The Glasses might fantasize about.
tl;dr, a great series for the most part, but it jumps the shark in a huge way and degenerates into endless preaching and sloppy writing.
All right, back in highschool I was a huge SoT fan. And I'll admit, I still consider some of the books to be among the best high fantasy I've read (though not the best). Goodkind is an excellent storyteller (most of the time), and and put a lot of work into making his characters believable and his world plausible. I especially liked the detail put into the politics and the rules of magic. Made it feel more real.
But partway through the series, something bad happened. As was noted earlier, it seems like Goodkind was hit over the head with a copy of Atlas Shrugged and became bound and determined to turn what was a pretty sweet fantasy series into a vehicle for Objectivism. Now, I don't have a problem with incorporating philosophy into fiction. And while I don't necessarily agree with all of Objectivism, there are parts of it I can get behind. And even the parts that I don't I could mark them up to "Agree to disagree" and still enjoy the story.
Unfortunately it seemed that the story took a backseat to the philosophy as the characters had a permanent soapbox attached to their feet. Page after page after page of speeches, over and over again, oftentimes about things that were already preached about. Goodkind has all the subtlety of a megaton hammer being bashed into your skull, and seems to like to take every opportunity to shove Objectivism down his readers throats. It eventually got to the point where you can skip large chunks of the chapters without missing anything important.
Also, I dislike some of the extremes Goodkind is willing to justify because of his philosophy. While at first the heroes were morally complex who would struggle with the consequences of some of their harder choices, in time it got a little hard to swallow. I refer you to the infamous "Evil Pacifist" scene from Naked Empire, in which a bunch of naive and backward people are brainwashed by the Imperial Order are in Richard's way. The form a human wall to keep him from killing the bad guys, whom they are convinced are the good guys. He slaughters them. Now, this could be justified if Goodkind had pointed out that it was totally necessary given the wartime situation and pump it up as the lesser of two evils. But no, the justification was that they needed to be killed because they lacked, and I quote, Richard's "Moral Clarity". Give me a freaking break.
Another problem that has already been mentioned: the Deux ex Machinas. Now, some were okay. As you mentioned, discovering a new thing about magic makes it seem like there's more to the world that we don't know. But others were just plain stupid.
For example, I refer you once again to the end of Naked Empire. Richard is dying from a poison, and the final necessary antidote has been destroyed. What is Goodkind's answer? Have Richard magically pull the recipe out of his ass, down to specific instruction on how to make it. No buildup, no foreshadowing that his Seeker of Truth powers also extend to magical chemistry, it just happens. Come on, that's just lazy.
For example, I refer you once again to the end of Naked Empire. Richard is dying from a poison, and the final necessary antidote has been destroyed. What is Goodkind's answer? Have Richard magically pull the recipe out of his ass, down to specific instruction on how to make it. No buildup, no foreshadowing that his Seeker of Truth powers also extend to magical chemistry, it just happens. Come on, that's just lazy.
And on that note, I also didn't like how Goodkind kept changing his own rules in order to accommodate his philosophy. Here's just one example. For a good chunk of the series, Richard can't eat meat or cheese or anything that comes from an animal in order to balance all the killing he does. All right, I can get behind this. Realistic magic and actual consequences for the win. But then, in Naked Empire (wow, that one seems to pop up a lot, doesn't it?), he discover that nope, that's a bad idea, as it means he has to admit that there was something wrong with all the killing he does, and refraining from eating meat starts to kill him. Um, what? The first time around he didn't even know about the "don't eat meat" problem and spat out a piece of cheese or something. And he seemed pretty okay with killing the bad guys at the time. And yes, there is something wrong with all that killing. It's horrible. Necessary? Yes. Do many of the people he killed deserve it? Yes. Is there still something wrong with people being killed? Hells yeah. And don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of the death penalty, but even I can acknowledge that killing is a terrible thing, even when it has to be done. So yes, kind of pissed about how Goodkind felt the need to remove yet another cool aspect from his characters because it got in the way of making Richard out to be Objectivism's Marty-Stu of a Messiah.
Non spoilerish issues, I also had a real beef with the Chainfire Trilogy, in that Goodkind felt the need to recap what's happened so far over and over again, as if we've forgotten everything we've read. This happened constantly, to the point where I was again skipping entire pages without missing anything important. I also noted that as the series went on, he must have had a falling out with his editor or something because I kept catching grammar and spelling errors.
Another beef: The Imperial Order. Or just about every bad guy. Is making them so blatantly evil that necessary? I'm all for a twisted villain, but that just was ridiculous. Did he notice that his heroes were starting to become somewhat unwholesome that he felt the need to make them seem good by making the villains absolutely repulsive? I mean, come on! The last book descended into cannibalism and had the IO's children using severed heads as soccer balls! One of the reasons why the Galactic Empire from Star Wars is so beloved is that despite definitely being the bad guys, they still had a lot of good going for them as a political government. It made things a little more morally ambiguous and therefore more interesting. But hey, if moral ambiguity isn't you thing, then at least don't make things ridiculous by making the villains feel like something Ask That Guy With The Glasses might fantasize about.
tl;dr, a great series for the most part, but it jumps the shark in a huge way and degenerates into endless preaching and sloppy writing.
I like the Sword of Truth series, but there is no way it's one of the best series ever. I've read up to the third book and to be honest it really hasn't captivated me into buying the fourth. The characters have changed to much (the only one's I actually sort of like now are Zedd, Gratch, Verna and Warren), the plot is pretty pradictable and sometimes wading through the descriptions can be a bit hard going. The series is ok for what it is but I have read far better.
For example: Most of David Eddings works. I still can't decide whether I prefer the Sparhawk series or The Belgariad but either way his stories are captivating, filled with interesting characters, has a good mixture of seriousness and humour and some good action scenes.
The Dresden Files is another series I really like. Again, fascinating characters, lots of action and humour, interesting self reflecting parts and creepy as hell bad guys. Plus of course the book series based on awesomeness.
The best book series ever? I couldn't say, I haven't read them all. But in my opinion, those two have a pretty good shot at it.
For example: Most of David Eddings works. I still can't decide whether I prefer the Sparhawk series or The Belgariad but either way his stories are captivating, filled with interesting characters, has a good mixture of seriousness and humour and some good action scenes.
The Dresden Files is another series I really like. Again, fascinating characters, lots of action and humour, interesting self reflecting parts and creepy as hell bad guys. Plus of course the book series based on awesomeness.
The best book series ever? I couldn't say, I haven't read them all. But in my opinion, those two have a pretty good shot at it.
Thanks for the long, thoughtful post.TakerFoxx said:
I agree with the philosophy, and I never felt that it was inappropriate when one of the characters was explaining it. I hear a lot of people complain about this, and I admit that it did get boring in Naked Empire, but I never had a problem with it in any other book.
I hear this scene mentioned a lot, and I don't have a problem with it. I agree with Richard, a person is responsible for their own choices, even if they are lied to, or cheated, simply manipulated through their ignorance into making the wrong choice, even if they didn't know there was a choice, they are still responsible for that choice. I see why it bothers people, but I never saw it as compromising the moral integrity of the main characters. I saw it as the correct thing to do. Probably the biggest reason I agree with this choice, is because I agree with the danger represented by the ideals of Bandakar. "Fear any breach of this seal, for beyond are those who cannot see evil." Or something like that. That's my opinion anyway.
I had been racking my brain for an example where goodkind used a deus ex machina poorly, and I hadn't been able to. I guess that's what I get for reading one of the books once. At the same time, I'm not sure this was actually deus ex machina. It was definitely poorly done, but it had been discussed many times that prophecy was in the realm of his abilities. Then again, I'm not sure if that disqualifies it from being deus ex machina, I only heard of the concept today. Despite that it was definitely a poorly written end to a book. good point
It was never said that Richard couldn't eat meat as a balance to the killing he did, that was just Ann's interpretation, and Ann was wrong a lot. I always thought that it was more likely that Richard had to avoid eating meat as a reaction to his guilt over defending himself and what he cared about. A penalty for believing a contradiction. I think this is the interpretation that is accurate because Naked Empire is the first book that Richard says things like: "I can't eat meat to balance the killing I do." Before that, he always says something like: "For some reason, I can't eat meat. The sisters of the light thought it was as a balance to the killing a war wizard has to do." Looking back at the series, the times when he can't eat meat aren't all asssociated with killing(it's a sporadic restriction), but instead coincide with times when he is in conflict with himself. He still had trouble with meat months after Darken Rahl, I think not because of killing him itself, but more because of the conflict within himself over not admitting his heritage and his gift.
I loved the "rehashing" from chainfire trilogy. I never felt that it was really a rehash though, It felt more like a necessary explanation because the reader doesn't(at least I didn't) remember everything that happened all the way back to the first book, but it was still important.
Like the specific wording of what Shar says to him in WFR, or showing the readers how important it is that Richard saw Kahlan's grave in Stone, or how much it upset Zedd and Richard that red fruit was poisonous in the midlands. All of these are relevant to new parts of the story, but I doubt many readers remembered all the details about them. not to mention all the other details.
Yes, the villains needed to be as evil as they were. It reinforced the assertion that individual lives mean nothing to them, so long as humanity survives. It was further proof of the dangers of their ideology and made the struggle against them all the more desperate. That said, I don't remember any children playing soccer, or "The game of life" with severed heads. when did this happen? And when did cannibalism pop up? I'm starting to feel that my memory is failing me, these both seem like pretty memorable events.
I'd be glad to compare to SoT, and I'll try to be objective.Bobbity said:Huge wall of text incoming. Sorry
I've never read the series, but I'll go through the aspects of a few of the series that I like, and maybe you can compare them for me.
Okay, I've finished writing, and I'll be damned if I don't post this now, but as I realize I've gone on a bit long, maybe someone nice could just scan through this and compare it to the Sword of Truth stuff?
I spoilered it for space, because it is huge.
World: I like a world to feel real, and to give a true sense of authenticity and history. I like distinct cultures, with well defined beliefs and nations. For a fantasy series to work for me, I have to feel that the world is real, and not just the creation of an author who needs a convenient setting[1]. Even things such as unique animals and glimpses of unfamiliar eco-systems can make a world seem more real. Immensity is also good, but only if the author can adequately put a large world together in a good way.
Setting: Either highly focused, or grand in scale. The book "Legend", by David Gemmel is set entirely in the besieged fortress city of Dros Delnoch, and I liked that. This gives time for the author to describe the city, define the area, and do all sorts of interesting things in the one place.
On the other hand, a grand sense of scale also contributes vastly to my enjoyment of a book/series. To name two examples: The Lord of the Rings, and the Wheel of Time. Both series have an enormous sense of scale, with entire nations being drawn into war. Reading about entire nations being enveloped in chaos; vast forces that defy description clashing with one another, there's a definite sense of awe.
What I don't like are books that shoot for an epic feel, but end up feeling minute and undersized, or, alternatively, series originally intended to be small in scale, but grow and grow with each passing sequel until they feel almost ludicrous.
Fantasy elements: This basically encompasses fantasy specific things, such as fantasy races and magic. Despite the obvious fact that the stuff in this category doesn't exists, I still like it to feel real. A totally overpowered system of magic with no boundaries and that therefore has to be curtailed by the author really grates on me. For example, if magic were an acceptable solution to a situation, then why isn't it used? Incredibly contrived plot reasons for the lack of magic in order to increase the sense of danger just annoys me. On the other hand, magics such as the Source in "Wheel of Time" and the true names of things in Ursula K. Le Guin's Earthsea stuff are original, limited, and interesting.
As for different races, I despise the Tolkeinesque arch-types, unless Tolkien himself is using them. For an author to simply rip them out of his works[3] and place them into their own really grates on me. If the author is using dwarves, elves and whatnot, then at least some originality with their characteristics is always nice.
Politics, factions and nations Nations should be clearly defined, each with agendas, cities, leaders and peculiarities of their own. For a nation to exist as a kind of shapeless entity is just annoying. Detail is the key word here, as always. Detail and at least a weak sense uniqueness. Anything but a bunch of identical kingdoms that seem to have all been cloned from each other. As for different factions, they need a real reason to be fighting each other, not just something quickly contrived for the sake of creating conflict.
Characters
Characters and villains need to be interesting. They need to have motivation for acting as they do, and their actions need to make sense; at least to them. Characters need to have reasons for acting as they do, and they must act according to their own view of the world, not for the convenience of the plot. If a character is cowardly, then to have them suddenly turn around and defeat the villain because they happen to be nearby is just stupid. For a merciless and pragmatic veteran to suddenly rescue a caravan of refugees, then he'd better have a damned good reason for doing so. The fact that the caravan is important to the plot is not a reason for the person to suddenly act out of character; he's going to need a real, solid reason.
By the same token, bad guys need reasons for what they do. Spite against the world and traumatic childhoods are perhaps the weakest of reasons, but they're still better than "Why are they evil? Because they are! They also eat puppies and scare orphans!". Far, far better. Characters also need to be relatable, or at least bear the semblance of an ordinary person, rather than a specific character who's only reason for existence is to drive the plot.
I realize that in the last ten minutes or so of writing I've done a terrible job of relating my specifications for an interesting series to the topic, and other fantasy works, so for the sake of remaining at least somewhat on topic, try to imagine a character you've read about who genuinely had no connection with the rest of humanity, as opposed to one who does. They don't have to be from fantasy works though.
Plot
I'd write about this, but it's pretty much covered by a combination of all the other important aspects I've mentioned, and I've already gone waaaaaaaaaaaay too long. Just so long as the plot's not too unbelievable, you're good.
[1]The world of Christopher Paolini's "Eragon" is an excellent example of a world that was smashed together in a couple of spare hours.
[2] Like Raymond Feist's "Magician" series. The series actually started on a definite high note, but with each passing sequel more and more demon realms and unimaginable evils were been introduced so that it's now all but unreadable.
[3]Again, Eragon.
World: SoT has a large, detailed world, not quite as well done as WoT, but close. I feel that Goodkind got a little lazy with the "old world" which is more or less homogeneous, with only a few different cultures. There are reasons for this, but that's why i say he did a good job, but not as good as Jordan.
Setting: I would say that it is not quite as Grand as WoT, but equally detailed. (I'm using WoT because you seem to have read it, and it's a very similar series to SoT.
Fantasy Elements: Not sure. I think you might have a bit of an issue specifically with one character, but other than that I think you will like it. There are a few magical creatures, several cultures that deal heavily with magic, and a magic that isn't too powerful, or unreasonable restrained, with the possible exception of one character in the later books.
Politics: The nations in SoT are well detailed, with agendas and quirks. some of them are fairly cliche, but overall, I think it was very well done. The political interaction might let you down a little. It fit's very well with the SoT story, but it's very different from what you saw in WoT, and it may or may not disappoint you. That shows up in book 3. I don't think WoT did it any better, I think both authors did it in a way that was appropriate for their characters and world.
Characters: I thought SoT did an amazing job of this, as do all of my friends, but some people on this very thread thought that the characters became a little flat towards the last half of the series. I think they are very interesting characters, on both sides of the conflict throughout the whole thing. If you liked Jordan's multiple main characters, you will see something with a very similar flavor in SoT, but not quite as far reaching. Goodkind doesn't characterize every wagon driver and message boy the way Jordan did, and he has probably half the main characters that Jordan does towards the end of his series.
Plot: I found the plot addicting. With any book I read, I really want to see what happens next, but with the SoT series, I needed it like I needed to breathe.
Summary, If you liked WoT at all, and based on your criteria, then I would definitely recommend giving SoT a shot. I don't think you'll be disappointed.
I was laughing my @$$ off at this point, then I saw you were serious. Just to clarify, I've read the first book and was around half-way through the second, so take what I say with a grain of salt.spartan231490 said:
First of all, I found no issues with the writing style, it was nice, clean, effective. What I had issue with was the story.
The first novel was a cliche of the grandest scale, everything that was there was done by someone else and it was done better. The scenes were predictable as hell, you knew what was going to happen. Still, it was more than the sum of it's parts and I enjoyed it for what it was.
Then came the second book. Dear lord, filler almighty. The plot of the second book was the same as the first one. WARNING: SPOILER AHEAD
- Richard and his bimbo are separated.
- Richard is restrained
- Richard is going to experience "pain"
- they love each other so much
- does she love me?
- We must save Richard!
All of those things were done in Book one, a lot of them were resolved already. Not to mention that Kahlan is dictatorial as hell. If she was suppose to protect the people and keep balance, then why is she threatening to destroy anyone who is in her way?
I didn't finish book two, I have other things to do than reading a story I already read. The only plot point that interested me was whenever Kahlan and Richy had a baby boy, however I didn't care enough to suffer through this.
Other people may have done it first, better is a matter of opinion.Traun said:
If you had finished book 2, you would have seen it's not as similar to the first as you think. At all.
But was I obliged to? As Yahtzee pointed out "Saying it was good twenty hours in isn't a point in his favor", as much as I dislike quoting him. That is my opinion as a reader though, nothing against people who liked the series, just not the best thing I've read.spartan231490 said:
Just to spoil myself - what happened with the baby boy thing? Wiki doesn't acknowledge this plot point at all.
As far as epic genre series go, I say the Aubrey/Maturin by Patrick O'Brien. It's serial, it's historical fiction, it breeds fans brimming with obscure knowledge, and yet it's literature, and its deep characters and portrayal of the human condition is authentic to its time period and profound in the present day.
