Terry Goodkind "Sword of Truth" serie

[halplm]

Another Author who has at some point REALLY gotten on my nerves with "Preachy" bits, is Steven Brust.

If you've read Teckla, you know what I mean. However, because his main character is excessively disdainful of that "preachy" aspect, it almost works. It is, of course, his worst of the Vlad novels, but it's at least readable. Fortunately, Brust moved past that phase, and is back to writing as he does so well...

[Tomalion]

i dont really think that goodkind is TOO preachy. obviously he does a fair bit of preaching (more in his later books), but like i said before, it is in context to what's going on in the story so its not like its just thrown in there. besides, ideas like standing up for the right to live in freedom and that everyone has that right arent all that radical are they? i may be the only one in here that thinks this, but goodkind HAS written one of the best stories i've ever read (i know people are going to jump all over me for this like they do about jordan) and i love his characters. just my two cents about this series.

[Hobbituk]

but like i said before, it is in context to what's going on in the story so its not like its just thrown in there

Yeah, it it though. Really.

[undomiel]

Yeah, really. Those speeches are so fake it makes me sick sometimes. I'll give him that he has some good characters. Except for that stupid annoying Jennsen girl. I really hated her.

[Tomalion]

have any of you been on the message boards on the terry goodkind site? there are some pretty damn annoying people there. i made a post saying how objectivism came across to me (not good) and i got jumped all over. these people think ayn rand is the greatest person in the history of the world. *shudders* i know you guys have said you dont like the preaching (i dont mind since it relates to what's happening to the characters) but what do you think of objectivism? its way more extreme than in the books.

i actually liked jennsen. and i liked *braces for attack* pillars of creation. the battle for aydindril was one of the best parts of the series.

[The,real,Maeglin]

What do you mean with objectivism? :

I don't really understand that tbh.

[Hobbituk]

the battle for aydindril was one of the best parts of the series.

The highlight of a tiresome book. But nowhere near as good as some of the other "Zedd" moments. I think Zedd has to be the one character than TG has managed to make consistently good. He's quite original, complex and humourus and has been in every single book.

In fact, drop Richard, let's just have a series about Zedd's entire life! (like "Debt of Bones")

[undomiel]

Was Debt of Bones a good book? I haven't read it yet. Yes, Zedd has always been a good character. I don't think I've been diappointed by him once, except perhaps the lack of him. I also really liked Verna and Warren. It was so sad when he died.

As far as objectivism is concerned, are you speaking of Terry Goodkind's toward his story? If you are then I think he started out pretty well and then started putting his own beliefs and philosophies into the characters mouths way too much. He says on his website that his story is about characters and that his characters are "agents" of the story. So really, the story is about him. I believe this is one of the worst ways to write.

[Hobbituk]

"Debt of Bones" was not bad...it was too short to really get your teeth into but it had a great little twist at the end and seeing Zedd in his prime was a bit of a thrill (especially the part where he holds a conversation with three people at once).

It also filled in one or two questions about Richard's mother's history too and the death spell.

I would like a full length book of that sort.

[The_Shirefox]

Well, I just read WFR, and I have to say, I don't really feel much need to read further (other than giving the writer a chance to improve himself). The one character a really enjoyed, Denna, is dead. Yes Zedd is alright too, but he falls in the Merlin/Gandalf/wise man category. I went to terrygoodkind.com in the hopes of some discussion about the book. I wanted to give my opinions and hear the defense of fans, but as that site seems to have nothing but positive things to say, I have refrained from posting there.

I'm rather picky in my fantasty. I don't like fantasy merely for the sake of being fantastical. One can have strange world, magic, and bizarre monsters, but if they don't somehow create a big picture that stands on its own, I think it fails as good fantasy. Of course, that is only the setting for a good story that must have interesting characters that the reader can relate to.

As far as the world that TG creates, I have some serious problems with it. I don't expect all authors to have the detailed world that Tolkien created (Tolkien's work has its own issues - black and white depiction of good and evil, traditional worldview, endearing but not terribly complex characters). But TG's world is flat and devoid of life. There is almost no sense of culture and history. There is barely a sense of time and technology. I'm assuming that we are in the typical sword and sorcery medieval setting, but at any point in the story I wouldn't have been surprised to see a car or the armies come marching in with machine guns. I think I have a pretty good imagination, but I can barely imagine the places the characters visited in the generic sense much less the rest of the world. The population seems to be some nameless, faceless mass, or perhaps not there at all since they aren't mentioned in the story. The Westlands seem to consist of two shanty towns, the Midlands a group of generic kingdoms, of which we get a generic description of one, and D'Hara consists of a single huge People's Palace. The only places we see are a string of locations/obstacles that the character must visit to complete the story. These are placed as needed for the story. There is no sense of a world that lives and breathes outside of the immediate action of the story.

Monsters and magic could be considered the staples of fiction. As far as TG is concerned, he seems to be making it up as he goes along. Random monsters named and produced as an obstacle is needed for the character's story. Magic created to keep the story moving. Wizard magic, confessor magic, sorceress magic, additive magic, subtractive magic, underworld magic, drawing magic, building magic, magic of the tongue, magic of the touch, hate magic, love magic. None of it is connected in any sort of logical, satisfying way. And this doesn't include the various magical artifacts that appear when needed and litter the story.

I suppose all of this could be considered forgiven if the story and characters were exceptional. It is a first book and it takes time to release details. But I did not like Richard much as all. One strange thing I noticed was that I could never place an age to him. He may have been 20, but he could have also have been 40. I sense of age would have hinted at his place in life and revealed more about him, but I really couldn't guess with certainty how old he is. He is a blank slate, and I never really believed his transformation into the "Seeker." The details we do have about his life are given to us bluntly. Kahlan is bit better developed and more interesting, but their developing love affair is a bit torturous to read about. We know that, despite the odds, that they have to get together, and I found myself wishing that they would just get it over with.

One could also put some of this aside if it dealt with some interesting issues. Truth - it touches lightly on the idea that truth is in the eye of the beholder. There is no pure evil or good. But Richard's search for truth is more about finding a way to bag Kahlan. Time and again he turns aside from what he should do for her, and ultimately, that is more important than anything else he is after. Sex is fairly prominent to the story, which can have a place in any type of story if done right, but it is just there to spice things up. Rape is even more prominent. Rape is an important issue that needs to be known and discussed. If you want, read about how the Germans in WWII poured into Russia, killing Jews and undesirables as they went. The Russians, on the counter-offensive movement into Germany, raped all the way back to Berlin. These are ugly issues, but TG doesn't deal with them or add any humanity to them. He just uses them to make the bad guys worse, and possibly to get his own jollies.

I won't discuss the Gollum/Samuel incident, or the generic storyline. The one saving grace to the book is the secondary characters. Zedd, Rachel, Giller, and Chase are decent. Denna and her little episode with Richard are actually the most human and interesting part of the story. As others said, it stands out like a sore thumb from the rest of the story, but I actually think it is the only really good part of the book. The rest is a generic fantasy with a soap opera's worth of bizarre coincidences and revealed relations between the characters.

Sorry for those who I may have disgruntled, but I feel I have exorcised myself. I would welcome any counter arguments that could put a more positive light on these issues, but I don't expect to read further as even those who like the series say it goes downhill at some point or another.

[Elkay2]

As far as objectivism is concerned, are you speaking of Terry Goodkind's toward his story?

Objectivism is a philosophy espoused by Ayn Rand. I think basically Michael Douglas' character in Wall Street summed up the philosophy best:
"Greed is good." She even has a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness."

I drifted away from the Terry Goodkind series once he started making his objectivist philosophy more blatant in his books.

[Hobbituk]

Shirefox, I agree with many of your points there. I will say that the world and the characters he creates are not completely without attraction.

For the 14 year old me his first few books were magical and drew me in completely. Unfortunately, as I've gotten older I've grown out of the shallowness of the world he has created. Only the memory of how I felt at first makes me keep reading these days. Though, now I'm beginning to question whether I should really given that any criticisms Goodkind gets from people who still read his books gets the reaction,
"ha! But you must not really think that as you still read them! aha! My logic is flawless! You've obviously been assimilated by the Pod People or the communists! Mwuhahahahaha!" (or something like that...er...probably)

This seems to be generally the opinion of those sickeningly fawning fans on his website. Ugh.

[The_Shirefox]

Fair enough Hobbituk. I certainly have my share of things that I have loved since childhood despite their glaring flaws. I do seem to be becoming more cynical as I get older too I continue to read the WOT series, despite the fact they are spiraling downward and far from high literature. I barely made it past the first book of that series, but I did get sucked in after I was given the second book as a gift. I just don't want to follow down that path again.

The fans at his site sound fun I tempted to post my review over there. He heh.

[Hobbituk]

Well, just finished reading the latest one "Chainfire"

It generally takes some time after finishing a book before I can form a definite opinion on it, but my first instinct with this one I'm sorry to say (again) is "disappointment"


A FEW SPOILERS






There a few highlights in the book. The beginning, the first fifty pages or so is very good. The "death" of Cara is one of the best bits of writing Goodkind has done...almost as good as the death of Raina in BOTF. Also, the entire idea around Kahlan disappearing from people's memories is intriguing and has you guessing for quite a while.

Some of the disappointment I feel about this one stems from the fact that it is the first in a "trilogy" which will cap off the series. It's one story told over three books and therefore doesn't really have much in the way of an ending. This means that a daft amount of stuff is left hanging and we are none the wiser.

There's too much preaching AGAIN, but that's pretty much par the course with Goodkind these days. I'm learning to skim over it.

However, the biggest crime in this book is the treatment of Zedd. As I have already said in this thread, Zedd is Goodkind's greatest creation. A character that is humourous, interesting, powerful, full of personality and fairly original. In this book he hardly does a thing.
Naked Empire was redeemed by the bits with Zedd in it, Chainfire has nothing like that at all.

[Tomalion]

The fans at his site sound fun I tempted to post my review over there. He heh.

dont bother...the admin, zedd, will just delete it. he banned me from the site just for talking about other authors. what an a hole.

i still like the story and characters of SOT, but i just kind of skim over all the philosophy parts now. TG seems to think we're all dumb and need things explained in 3 page sermons for us to understand. i read chainfire and i thought it was good, but the books just dont have that same magical feel as the first ones did. i'm still going to read the last two though, since the story is entertaining.

[The,real,Maeglin]

It's amazing me that by reading and lurking in this thread, that I somehow can't put myself to read the serie over again and read his last two books. I stoppedreading his serie and always regretted it, but somehow by reading all this it only makes the reason for stopping more logic if i read this.

Kinda the same with jordan, although I am 99% sure i would never start reading that one over again. There are very little series i stopped in, and it always keeps fretting at me. I am not a quitter you know

[tolkienpurist]

Well, just finished reading the latest one "Chainfire"

It generally takes some time after finishing a book before I can form a definite opinion on it, but my first instinct with this one I'm sorry to say (again) is "disappointment"

Some of the disappointment I feel about this one stems from the fact that it is the first in a "trilogy" which will cap off the series. It's one story told over three books and therefore doesn't really have much in the way of an ending. This means that a daft amount of stuff is left hanging and we are none the wiser.

There's too much preaching AGAIN, but that's pretty much par the course with Goodkind these days. I'm learning to skim over it.

However, the biggest crime in this book is the treatment of Zedd. As I have already said in this thread, Zedd is Goodkind's greatest creation. A character that is humourous, interesting, powerful, full of personality and fairly original. In this book he hardly does a thing.
Naked Empire was redeemed by the bits with Zedd in it, Chainfire has nothing like that at all.

Hey Hobbituk,

Generally agree. It's so bad that when I finished Chainfire, my reaction was, "Well, that wasn't AS BAD as the last two books." Heh. Why am I still reading? Because I want to know what happens when Richard and Kahlan inevitably have their child and all hell breaks loose (given that this is the most foreshadowed event in the history of foreshadowed events, I'm guessing it's going to happen at SOME point).

Honestly, this ending trilogy feels like a bad idea. Chainfire ended, it felt, without any resolution. And then, many characters were robbed of their essence, including Kahlan (we had to go a full book without her being herself, and for the most part, without her being there at all), Zedd, etc. The Richard-Cara dynamic, which I loved, was compromised most of the way. Etc.

I love this series through FOTF, but after that, I've always had to ask myself why I've continued to read. Further, as I mentioned months earlier in this thread, Goodkind's egomaniacal attitude is enough to stave off even committed fans.

As far as objectivism itself, I don't know much about it other than what Goodkind shoves down our throats. I have not read Ayn Rand at all. However, it'd make a good Manwe topic, huh?

- TP

[Hobbituk]

Yes, very much so!

I wonder what TG thinks of his "loyal" fanbase. Surely he must be aware that those that praise him unconditionally are either 14 year old boys who like it for the violence and sex (I know I did when I was 14! ), right-wing types who already agree with his philosophy and just general slavering lunatics like those posting on his site who seem to be trying to curry favour with him!

Does he care?

It's not that I'd ever suggest an author turn their backs on what they believe in, in order to write a popular book and I'm not just saying it because I think his "ideas" are appalling. There are ways of including your beliefs in subtle ways...he managed it in WFR, it's a shame he seems to have lost the knack/desire.

[tolkienpurist]

Yes, very much so!

I wonder what TG thinks of his "loyal" fanbase. Surely he must be aware that those that praise him unconditionally are either 14 year old boys who like it for the violence and sex (I know I did when I was 14! ), right-wing types who already agree with his philosophy and just general slavering lunatics like those posting on his site who seem to be trying to curry favour with him!

Does he care?

I believe he's stated explicitly that he does not - sadly. His extreme statements regarding his contributions to the fantasy world indicate that he is so secure in his own "brilliance" that there's no turning back.
As for the younger readers - I believe he alienated them separately by stating that he was troubled that they were reading and that the works were not designed for them. I don't remember the exact quote, but I remember him seeing questions from younger teenagers asking exactly what he meant by that

It's not that I'd ever suggest an author turn their backs on what they believe in, in order to write a popular book and I'm not just saying it because I think his "ideas" are appalling. There are ways of including your beliefs in subtle ways...he managed it in WFR, it's a shame he seems to have lost the knack/desire.

Exactly. Well, I think that the issue here is that his beliefs seem to have developed as he wrote the series, so that by the time he got to FOTF, he had a more developed ideology to "push" than he did during WFR. In WFR, he was focused on solid characterization and storytelling IMO, where in later books, his focus shifted to using fantasy as the medium to communicate ideas. He believes that this was a positive change and indicates his development as a writer. I personally do not.

I love books in which writers uses subtlety to communicate ideas or convince me of their truth. Of course, once I see this happening, I'll try to read more independently about the idea to see whether I do want to adopt it as my own - but still. Of course, this isn't the forum to discuss Tolkien, but I believe that he, too, can serve as a good example how subtly to communicate ideas. Goodkind, on the other idea, has become the antithesis of subtle...unless giving Richard four page soliloquies to deliver is "subtle".

Nonetheless, it's interesting that I love the Wizard's Seventh (life is the future, not the past) and Ninth (a contradiction cannot exist in reality) Rules best of all, despite my dislike of the books in which they were originally delivered. And, given that Chainfire was IMO "not as bad" as the books which immediately preceded it, perhaps books ten and eleven will see a return to the Goodkind that many of us knew and enjoyed once upon a time

I'm not holding my breath, though. After all, doesn't Goodkind encourage us to use rational thought rather than to have faith?

- TP

[blackthorn]

Sorry for digging up old bones but I just got done read the last book in the series and was looking for this thread in search.

I must say that as I read further along this thread it becomes more and more hate full towards Terry goodkind. Its ok we are all entitled to each of are own opinions.
Thank god for freedom of speech and expression.

But I do agree with most of what every one is saying.

It always seams that Richard is always chasing his wife around and he can never stay in one spot for to long. Out of all the books I loved faith of the fallen the most. Some may disagree.

But the best caricatures are the ones he never wrights about I must agree like chase and all the one bookers as I call them.

I was also on there site and found that they are crazy with there rules. Its like a war zone say the wrong thing and get bombed.

I find the sex in his book are not as bad as some other ones I have read but they are disturbing in there own write. I find he is into s&m mostly and human torture but he has some very serious evil characters.

[Goldberri007]

Ooh, I've read these books! At least, the first five of them, anyway. I thought they were pretty good, for the most part; though in places they were rather... gut-wrenching. But in a way that makes them grip you more... And Also they were a bit preachy sometimes. But otherwise, I rather liked them.

Wow, Maeglin! I haven't seen you in ages; where've you been?

~Goldie

[Boromir209]

The goodkind website is ridculous, you can tell its about three adults ruling over thousands of little kids. Every single thread with any type of intelligence is so one sided its appaling and there are only about five threads which would even qualify as that. The rest are just idiotic ramblings. Some of the questions they ask leave me wanting to shoot myself, seriously they are just so stupid and infuriating.

Goodkind is an amazing writer though, I mean who else can write his way? Totally sparadic, irrational and lose track of all things plot, meaning, charachters and still come out with 800 pages? An inspiring first book to an ok 2nd then horrible through the end until whatever the last one is, Chainfire neh?, he finally redeems himself in the tiniest bit in my eyes.

If he wants to be seen as a writer with brains he should stop taking his books as if they were the first one read. Ive read how many of your books buddy? That means I PROBABLY picked up on who Richard is, how he has both sides of magic, how he is the first in 3000 years and how he's all about freedom. It seems that book 3- the first before the most recent, he was only writing to add another sentence on that insanely repetitive paragraph in every other chapter. "Richard is the only one in three thousand years to have both sides...."

He trys to imitate that style which I love dearly, where you have multiple tales going on at the same time and switch between them. But he tears it to pieces. Normally youre on the edge of your seat wishing to get to the end of one charachters ordeal, but with Goodkind you just want to rip out the part youre reading to get back to the one interesting storyline.

His charachters...Im just going to keep rambling so stop reading whenever you like Just come out with it, rename Richard Jesus or Mr. Perfect something, youll have to write less. Zedd is a total cliche but he is still so witty and great you HAVE TO KEEP GOING BACK TO HIM, Dont do your normal dumb thing and totally leave him out of whole books. Jennsen (sp)...kill her off. A whole book about her was ridculous, shes mentioned in three lines in the following one. You mustve been trying to redeem yourself by saying youd use her in later books for writing a steaming pile of....More Chase and the little girl, they are totally enigmatic and awesome attention get-ers. Plus they have the whole innocent thing going for them. Why Nathan? I loved the guy and all you do is put him in the background

He also has to fix his millions of anomalies. Like when the New world/Old world barrior came down, with all of the sister in there. Wouldnt there have been wizards in there if the sisters lived those thousands of years, emphasis thousands, as in wizards with both types of magic? What the heck is with you introduce a crazy new species where...(i havent read these in a long time) Verna goes to fix her travel book at the end of a book, then in the next book the travel book might as well have never been burnt because you dont ever go back to how its fixed. Whats with you trying to paint a picture of this magical place with thosands of crazy species then only giving us Dragons (insane cliche) and Graff, and those leather faced guys in the forest by the Sister's palace? castle?

He's too preachy, like youve all been saying. And his throwing in of modern issues is ridiculous. Over all, read the first second and last books those are the only ones worth reading IMHO, except for a few choice scenes and the few funny bits he gets in there. I always come out speaking about him in disgust but Richard's journey has so much damn potential that Ill just hope that it somehow comes out even with a great finish.
Boromir209

[Goldberri007]

Hi, Boro! Yes, I must admit that the first book is probably my favorite. The other ones are able to grip me at times, but they're just not the same, and they do get a bit too preachy and bring in modern issues and such. And there's some repetitive stuff, too; the description of Richard's war wizard outfit is repeated in two different books almost word-for-word.

But the first book is definately good, and the second and third are alright, too. I especially like the battle that Kahlan and the boys from Galia fight against the order: bodies painted all white, shrouded in mist. Awesome scene.

Anyhoo, I'd better head off now and do something productive...

~Goldie

[Master Samwise]

so... the series ended in November, and no one has said anything about The Sword of Truth for about two years. I think that his last book was great. I thoroughly enjoyed the descriptions of the Ja'La matches occurring throughout the story, and the ending of the series was good, although certain aspects were left out, in my opinion. I won't put any spoilers here until I know there are others who have read the story to its completion, and then I can feel free to discuss the books with spoilers intact. Needless to say, one of my biggest gripes with Goodkind was his repetitive use of Richard being "just a woods guide" or something to that effect. Luckily, Goodkind didn't say that about Richard until more than halfway through the book, and only said it ONCE. I felt proud for the author to not rely on that old crutch. So, tell me what you think. I would still rank this series as one of the best fantasy series written, and Goodkind as among my favorite authors.

[Goldberri007]

I've finished the series, too. And I loved it. The last book was really good. He ended it well. There are some things I'm left wondering about, though... But I'm not going to put any spoilers in yet, either. Don't want to ruin anything.

~Goldie

[Rymeryn]

answer: citizens should all pay for the defense of their life from foreigh and domestic threats. Funds for goverment services, for example the courts, should be collected from those who use them. All welfare should come from those who volunteer their own money, not the money of others, not the victums of theft ( the tax payer). men should not be required, at gun point, to "sacrifice" for other men. If you are told, at gun point, to give a group some of you property so then can have it for their own use and you are required to work for them for no compensation, that is called slavey. The present system of taxation, forced work for no payment, is notyhing but dressed up slavery. Yet another example of sacrfice for the greater good - the greater good meani (missing)


This is objectivism, Ayn Rand...at its worst. And this is what TG represents. Its a questionable ideology at best, and downright stupid at worst. It basically trumpets the worst of human character, that being greed and selfishness, and tries to hide it behind a thin veil of self-determination and ambition.
His treatment of pacifists in one of the books, where he actually has Richard kill some, gives a startling window into the author's psyche...which honestly strikes me as shallow, cold, and morally bankrupt. It only proves how little he understands, not only in terms of creating genuine characters, but in regards to how the real world operates. War is not always the only solution.

TG strikes me as a writer for kids. They are titilated by the sex and violence, drawn into a hallow world that is honestly not worth visiting. Even the responses that one sees from his hardcore fans is a reflection of this immaturity, an immaturity that can be seen in the author himself. Now, i'm not attacking those who like his books, i am stating trends that i have seen on his boards and with many of his fans. I think in time his star will fade, as i have heard has happened with many who have posted on this board, as they realize how badly written the entire series is. I loved the Dragonlance Chronicles, and i have a warm spot for them because they were amongst the first books that i had read, but i cannot really go back to read them. Not even for a guilty pleasure read.

I first bought WFR because there was a big to-do about this new fantasy author, and that his first book was brilliant. I was completely underwhelmed. I still am. I have refused to buy another book, only skimming others from a friend who got a bunch for christmas. I'll be honest here, there is very little redeeming quality in his books.

Joe Abercrombie is just one example of a fine author that has come out in recent years with a brilliant series. He is someone to read.

I think fantasy fans are like drug addicts in a way, we keep going back again and again even though a series is not very good or has gone to seed. I think this derives from the fact that once people have invested time into a series, they are reluctant to let it go. I read up to book 7 of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, even though i hated every character and everything in the series by book 5. I, like many others, are simply willing to put it up with it if we can find a series long enough to allow ourselves to immerse fully into some other world.

With TG, that world simply happens to be shallow, useless, and filled with flawed political ideals espoused by only a few - an ideology that has thankfully gone dormont, realized for what it is. Greed, hate.

[Ugluk]

For once, I agree with pretty much everything you said.

Except for this:

I think fantasy fans are like drug addicts in a way, we keep going back again and again even though a series is not very good or has gone to seed. I think this derives from the fact that once people have invested time into a series, they are reluctant to let it go..

And even that is not a disagreement as much as it is to point out that not all fantasy fans will do that, even though obviously many do. Generally I can quickly identify whether I will enjoy an author and am even quicker to give up on him if I decide he's not worth my time. It didn't take me very long to decide that neither Jordan nor Goodkind were worth my time, but I can agree that readers who enjoyed their first few books would have a harder time simply giving up on the series: once you've identified with the characters, there's that wish to find out what happens to them and to have closure to the story.

[Rymeryn]

I think the world just stopped spinning for a moment, Ugluk. Did you feel it?

I agree, it has to do with time commitment. RJ first book was not to bad, nor were the second and third. All of a sudden thats a huge time sink, and i was reluctant to let go.

With TG, i didn't much like the first book, but attacked a few of the others in bits and drabs (never have actually read an entire book of his after the first), and found them mostly rubbish. Light reading for the bathroom type thing.

It's like Tad Williams. I've tried to re-read his books simply because i bought them, not because i expected to suddenly enjoy the one i purchased the second time through. i still could not make a go of it.

[Master Samwise]

so you're a self-admitted person who HASN'T READ MORE THAN ONE BOOK yet you can come off with your holier than thou attitude and assume to understand the heart of the message the author has? that makes no sense whatsoever. your analysis of what TG is "supporting" is pretty much what the main character was FIGHTING AGAINST.

if you want to actually understand and have a leg to stand on beyond a very astute vocabulary, read the books. until then, realize that you're wrong.

and if you HAD read, you'd understand that war wasn't the solution ANYONE wanted except for the villain in the story. you're right, war isn't always the only solution. but there are times in which it IS the only solution. you think you could have negotiated a peace treaty with a person the likes of genghis khan or hitler (for a more modern illustration)? no. the only way you could have dealt with a person like that is to fight back to defend yourself. to initiate a peace treaty with them would allow the people already under their sway to continue to suffer, and there would be no real guarantee of your safety anyway.

TG doesn't espouse objectivism. read first, analyze second.

[Rymeryn]

Actually, due to the considerable amount of time i had on my hands during the summer, i went through a lengthy plot analysis of the books on another forum. Book by book. Excerpts and the entire bit.

Admitidly, thats not reading the books. I have skimmed the books at best, simply becuase they are trash. Before you go and lose your cool anymore, realize that i have more of a problem with his political bent than his books, but even those i find tiresome. I am certainly not about to lay down cash...or sea shells even...for his "works." Especially considering the interviews of him that i have read, when he blathers on about how he was born to write these works, and talks about objectivism even further. Having a degree in political science, i do have some knowledge of that deluded ideology.

I read the passage were he killed a peace protestor. I fail to see how he is "fighting against" anything by killing some woman. In one sense, you are correct. Sometimes war is the only way. I would not think to negotiate with Hitler, or Khann...or Karl Rove...i would simply attack. :)
That being said, working for peace is never the wrong thing. Trying to find understanding is never the wrong thing. Its only when you have people like Chamberlain looking for appeasement that it fails.
But i go back to the killing of the unarmed protester...again.

And perhaps you should actually read his books a little deeper. In interviews, where he is actually talking himself, he espouses objectivism and says that is part of the focus on his books. From UPTEEN different reviews, and that detailed analysis that only kept me reading because of the humor involved, that seems to be the case.

Like i said, perhaps i should read through the books. But WFR was underwhelming, period. I'm not about to shell out money for a series that i did not enjoy in the first book, especially considering many of the bits that i have read, comments and interviews from the author, and the fact that objectivism is simply a stupid idea.

I'm sorry if you feel personally attacked by my thoughts, but thats what the message board is for, no? (Sharing thoughts that is, not personal attacks.)I base my opinions upon what facts i have at hand. I have not studied his books in depth, nor will i. I don't need to read fantasy novels with main characters that are perfect, can kill everyone, except when there is heavy S&M to keep them in place.

Alot of reviews from others, on Amazon and elsewhere, also have a great many posts from people that continue to read the series despite coming to hate it. I think this, again, says something about fantasy fans these days. I know that i read RJ for too long, and i have heard the same from others.

There are just so many better books out there.

Tell you what Samwise, next time i'm in my home town, i'll going to my friends house and try and read through the series. Just to see how it goes. Of course until then i have every right to express my opinions based upon what i have read, and what i know. If you want, perhaps we can do a detailed plot analysis as i go through the books.