Limyaael ([info]limyaael) wrote,
@ 2004-11-06 23:59:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: bitchy
Entry tags:author-specific rants, fantasy rants: autumn 2004

Fantasy of excess: Rant on Jordan and Goodkind
Well, a lot of people seemed awfully enthusiastic for a rant about Robert Jordan and Terry Goodkind.

Never let it be said that I would pass up a chance to explain, in detail, why I don’t like these authors wouldn't give people what they want.



Note: I gave up on Jordan in the eighth book of his series, and Terry Goodkind in the fourth. (Not coincidentally, it was about the same time that I discovered Kay, Martin, and Brust). Most of the information about later books is gleaned from gleefully negative Amazon.com reviews. If I make a mistake, it's probably because of that.

1) When the narrative tells you that some characters are good and some are evil, there is a problem. The lines of good and evil are so thickly drawn in Jordan’s and Goodkind’s worlds as to be ridiculous. Jordan doesn’t even bother concealing how generic he is. His villain is the Dark One, and he will take over the world Because. His name, which no one pronounces (gee, is that Tolkien’s conception of Sauron I see being violated over there?) is Shai’tan (not a coincidence that it sounds like Satan! Bye-bye, subtlety!) and his servants include the Forsaken (even they call themselves that) and the Black Ajah (by now, any subtlety has run so far away it is not visible on the horizon). There is no good in the Dark One. There is no good in the Forsaken. There is no chance of anyone who’s a “Darkfriend” being redeemed. Once you’re evil, you’re evil. There was one character in the books, Asmodean, who looked as if he might be changing into a good character, but of course he’s weak and sniveling and gets blasted by someone else almost immediately. So even when Jordan offers himself an opportunity to blur the lines, it’s not going to happen.

Goodkind is similarly determined that no one empathize with his villain. His villain’s name is Darken Rahl. Yes, really. The first time we see him, he’s torturing and disemboweling a child. Yes, really. One of Darken Rahl’s servants is a pedophile whose liking of little boys is described and lingered on. Yes, really. One of the book’s minor villains tries to ban people from using fire. Yes, really. There are also the Sisters of the Dark, in an organization so similar to Jordan’s Aes Sedai that many, many people have accused Goodkind of outright copying. And, of course, they also practice sadism and rough sex. How horrible. /monotone

The heroes are no better. We know that Perrin, one of the three male main characters, in Jordan’s world is good because other characters go around comparing him to the sun. The “hero,” Rand, has the love of three women, who are all okay with this, and attracts the attention and desire of many, many more, and of course smashes his enemies without any effort. Jordan has introduced the possibility that Rand might go insane, but since every enemy who rises up against him gets his ass kicked in the exact same way, after a period of smugness and gloating, the tension’s lessened considerably. And, of course, there’s the female wizard who jerks the heroes around all through the first book and tells them she doesn’t have time to explain anything. You know she must be good, because the other characters cower in front of her.

And Goodkind’s Richard Rahl… If the narrative stopped describing him as ruggedly handsome and having every other character in sight tell him, “You’re a special person, Richard,” then the series might actually have ended by now.

2) Hello, misogyny. Goodkind and Jordan both display a variation of “feminism” which is actually more damaging than the normal pseudo-feminism in fantasy, the kind that says a princess wearing a gown is suffering as much as someone being beaten or raped. Supposedly, because their fantasy novels include female characters in prominent roles, they’re “feminist.”

Nuh-uh. And also: neener, neener, neener.

Goodkind’s main female character is Kahlan, Richard’s love interest. And I use that phrase quite advisedly. Kahlan seems to have her own separate position—as Mother Confessor, one of a number of women who can destroy other people’s minds and command them—and her own quest, on which Richard is a helper, at first. As the books pass, though, her concerns diminish, and she becomes almost obsessed with Richard. She can’t exist apart from him. Every book sees her convinced that he doesn’t love her and that, though she loves him, she has to send him away from her for his own good. Then they get back together again at the end of the book. Tell me, how is that feminist?

Goodkind’s other female characters often either fall in love with Richard, get tortured and raped and killed, or both. The series is notorious for its violence and gore, beyond what most fantasy series have. (This isn’t a good thing. See point 5). Hundreds and hundreds of women raped are nothing unusual for just one book, and the series now numbers eight. Goodkind also includes anti-abortion diatribes for free. If you want to know how not to write strong female characters in fantasy, then you can consider Goodkind’s works a crash course.

Or you could read Jordan, of course. His women become indistinguishable after a while. They all sniff, smooth their skirts, and cross their arms under their breasts. They all call men woolheads. They all abuse men—and I also use that word advisedly; one of the three main male characters is subject to verbal abuse from his wife, the other to rape from a lover—so that their relationships are not equal. They also get into situations where they have to be half-naked all the time. No, ask Jordan. Not me.

The mere presence of women in a fantasy book is not enough to make those women strong characters. They have to, you know, do things and change and stuff for that to be true.

3) Ability-focused heroes ‘R Us. Jordan’s Rand (as well as several other characters) is a ta’veren. What is a ta’veren, you ask? Why, someone who can bend the world around them and make wonderful things happen in defiance of the laws of nature, of course! So a child can fall from a tower and not break her head, or people can get married who barely know each other, or, oh, I don’t know, the character could just happen to block an attack from an enemy he would never have seen if he hadn’t turned around at that instant in time.

This is a walking deus ex machina. Add to it that Rand is a channeler, drawing magic from the male half of the True Source and able to command all five elements; a master swordsman (no reason for that, either, as it’s just something he picks up in his spare time); somehow able to convince everybody that he’s their rightful ruler; and keeps finding bigger and bigger weapons to amplify his magic, and you have a demigod no one can touch. He was mildly interesting because he might have gone insane from a “stain” on his magic, but in the ninth book of the series, he cleanses the stain.

I gave up on Jordan in the eighth book. I could not stand the constant accumulation of abilities. Rand was an ass out of which Robert Jordan could pull anything he needed, not a character.

I hate to depress you, but Richard Rahl is worse. He picks up abilities like magic, including stone-carving; he creates a statue that converts people from socialism to capitalism, despite no previous experience carving stone. (Goodkind has a Thing about proving that Socialism Is Evil). He kills every enemy he comes across. He manages to survive torture in a way that no one ever has, without having developed the technique to do so; it’s “instinctive.” Every book ends with an immense confrontation that “no one can win!”—except that Richard can, of course. His heritage allows him to protect everyone who’s sworn loyalty to him from the evil socialist emperor, who can otherwise control them. He makes friends with dragons and escapes from the clutches of evil sadomasochistic women, who then cower at his feet. He’s the beloved son of his adoptive father, the beloved grandson of the second most powerful wizard in the world, the beloved of the most powerful woman in the world, etc. It. Just. Never. Ends.

There has to be an ending. Characters like this are the reason I get so aggravated when authors insist on designing their people around their abilities, or making the protagonist the protagonist mainly because he has cool or unusual magic. When the magic destroys all hindrances, you have no stories left. And just as a lot of women on-stage doesn’t make those women strong or interesting characters, having your hero be the only one in the world who can do something doesn’t guarantee that the book will be worth the effort to turn the pages.

4) Cultural development? What’s that? Before I was about 11, I read animal books. That’s really about it. Fairy tales, too, but mostly animal books. I was going to be a vet. I pretty much knew it. End of story.

Then Tolkien hit me on the head like a falling rock. When I woke up, slightly stunned, I started reading fantasy instead.

I’ve since read more fantasy books than I can remember, but one thing I carried away from Tolkien is a sensitivity to language. It drives me batshit when fantasy authors can’t be bothered to apply realistic linguistic drift to a world.

Cue Jordan not doing it. Cue another reason for me giving up on the series.

Jordan has an extraordinarily large continent for the main part of his world (I don’t know if it has a name; fans tend to call it “Randland.”) Part of it is a desert shut behind mountainous barriers, and the people who live there, the Aiel—who are basically transplanted Fremen—have little commerce with other people until Rand shows up. There’s also a foreign group, the Seanchan, who went beyond the sea two thousand years ago and have only recently returned.

Everyone speaks the same damn language. Everyone. The Seanchan only slur their vowels slightly in speaking modern Randlandese. And there is only one Old Tongue, which no one speaks without special training, and which has no intermediate form between it and modern Randlandese.

I am unhappy.

Goodkind has a world that was until recently subdivided into thirds by magical barriers: D’Hara, the Midlands, and Westland. (Imaginative at names Goodkind is not). There’s also the Old World, which is off to the southeast of D’Hara, kind of; it’s been a long time since I looked at the map in those books. It’s been a while since anyone traveled from the Old World to the Midlands, but only a single generation since the barriers went up between the three main lands.

Supposedly, everyone in Westland has never told their children anything about the Midlands or magic at all. Really. Honestly. All knowledge somehow lost in about twenty years.

Of course, this is also the country of the minor villain who wants to ban fire, so you might say, “What could you expect?” But no one remembers the Old World, either, despite the existence of a magical passage that some people from the Old World can use, and the existence of the evil socialist emperor who can invade people’s dreams. Goodkind just throws them in there haphazardly and as he needs them. New countries show up all the time. Millions of people show up all the time. Goodkind doesn’t develop cultures in conflict with each other, but as static entities to be destroyed or converted by the heroes.

This is a No-No. Your fantasy world needs reasonable demographics and geography. They may not be the same as Earth’s, they may run on different rules, they may not be as detailed as Tolkien’s, but they need to stay there, and if there’s every reason to suspect, as with Jordan, that the people have normal psychology and linguistic abilities, the language should fucking change like a normal language.

Got it?

5) There is no end. Jordan’s series is 10 books now, each of them close to 1000 pages in paperback, and a prequel just came out. There are going to be two more prequels and likely at least three more volumes in the main series. It was originally projected as a trilogy, then as a six-book series. It’s been going on for 15 years now. And he’s written the last four books at such a glacially slow pace that almost nothing has happened. The first book covered months, while the seventh covered two weeks, and most of the tenth book happened before the ninth.

Kill it. Burn it. Stab it to death. If it’s true, as Jordan says, that he’s had the ending scene in mind from the beginning, then let him write that ending scene in the next book and be done. Fantasy is the land of expansive storytelling, but there is no storytelling that can justify this kind of thing—especially because Jordan spends so much time on descriptive detail, not action or plot or character development. Supposedly, something is about to happen, about to happen, about to happen. It never does.

Goodkind’s books are a little shorter—usually closer to 800 pages than 1000—but there’s eight of them, and apparently three more to come before the series ends. And then he might start doing prequels, too. The story structure itself doesn’t seem to be aiming at some grand end, either, the way that Jordan’s series (if one is overly kind) can be seen as doing. Richard and Kahlan just confront the next grand menace that no one’s ever confronted before and which is sure to tear them apart, survive it, and move on to the next grand confrontation that they won’t survive, except that they will, because you know there’s another book coming out.

Goodkind’s filler material is also description, but not of the landscape and clothing the way that Jordan’s is. It’s sadism, rape, torture of every description (the minor villain in the first book who likes to rape little boys is made to cut off his own testicles and eat them), more rape, killing, more rape, plague, more rape, murder, and more rape. Apparently, in the later books, Goodkind also spends much time ranting in a barely disguised Ayn Rand fashion about the evils of socialism, and his characters have long philosophical conversations instead of doing interesting things.

This is one reason I dread long fantasy series. Too many authors take the market’s permissiveness to write long books as, “I need to write a long series to get the point across.” No, you don’t need to. It should be as long as it should be, and no more. If you find yourself stretching the story, if you add in description that doesn’t need it, if you find yourself adding prequels and sequels and side stories and wall calendars, you need to set an end, and you need to stick to it.



All right, so that got rid of some of the anger.




Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]tyraarane
2004-11-06 09:17 pm UTC (link)
I can't weigh in on Goodkind, never having read him, but...AMEN on Robert Jordan. If I see one more rabid fan worship that man's books (and then attempt to lynch me for not doing the same), I am going to go postal.

I gave up on Jordan after the first book--I can't imagine how you managed to stick it out until the eighth. His plotting is god awful, he rips off Tolkien and then dances on his grave, his female characters are completely worthless, and there wasn't a single character in the first book I could really like--except for Lan, who went wildly OOC at the book's end by falling for whiny!bitchy!Nynaeve (or however you spell her name). I gave up after that. If there's no characters in the book I like and who actually bother to stay IC, what's the point in reading?

At which point I was lynched by the rabid fans. I don't get the fans. And I don't get the appeal of Jordan. It's just...urgh. It's part of what gives the fantasy genre its bad name in certain circles, IMHO.

So, yes--thank you for ranting on one of my biggest pet peeves. Because lord knows I can't do it coherently anymore.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]ana_beachcombe
2006-07-30 05:52 am UTC (link)
There's another rather good review of Wizard's First Rule here:

http://qos.enrious.org/index.php?name=Content&pid=72

I've attempted to read both Goodkind and Jordan, and given up because the first was annoying and distasteful and the second was boring. 'High' fantasy was never really my cup of tea.

*bows* Another fine rantfest from Limyaael.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]crukina, 2006-09-01 05:05 am UTC

[info]tsuki_no_bara
2004-11-06 09:31 pm UTC (link)
i stopped reading jordan after book 7 because a. he dropped a building on mat, who was my favorite character, and b. nothing had happened since at least book 5. it wasn't until i got a livejournal and started reading about fannish things that i realized what a HUGE mary sue rand is, and i could put a name to what bugged me so much about him. all the girls love him, he can do any damn thing he pleases, people fall all over themselves to either follow him or kill him.... altho it was mostly that every single woman who met him seemed to fall in love with him that bugged me the most. i mean, come ON. and nothing ever happens. well, except more people fall in love with rand and pledge their undying devotion.... it turned me right off epic fantasy.

(the language issue is probably the only thing about stargate that bothers me. it's the same thing as with jordan, except people on different planets spread all over the galaxy all speak english. the aliens, too.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]youraugustine
2004-11-06 09:41 pm UTC (link)
Looking back, I can tell immediately what fantasy series I read when I was younger had Mary Sues in them.

They were the ones that inspired me to create my own sue-character to go into the world for pretty much the sole purpose of Showing Them Up.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]skalja, 2004-12-18 12:32 pm UTC

[info]draegonhawke
2004-11-06 09:35 pm UTC (link)
...have you done a rant on languages yet? Working with a fantasy universe with a bunch of languages all over the place, some derived from a common source and some not, I'd be interested to see what you have to say on the subject--but if you already wronte one up, I think it was before my time.

(Reply to this)


[info]luna_manar
2004-11-06 09:54 pm UTC (link)
Interesting. I was never able to get past Jordan's first book--fell asleep before page 50--and from the looks of it, I didn't miss much.

What if you don't have a preset end for a series? What if you just have a world, and write stuff on it as it comes to you? That's what I tend to do with most of my writing. Should I ever publish any of it, I don't know that I'll ever be able to say when it will end, simply because I don't think about whether it will or not. I do, however, have it set up so that the "last" book brings a reasonable conclusion, that might be called an end, should nothing else ever be written after it.

Gratuitous violence and rape...if there's that much of it in a story, you have to wonder if the author doesn't get off on it somehow, or at least if he's unhealthily obseessed with it for one reason or other. I've noticed that a lot of authors seem to like to harp on things they consider bad and evil, describing them in deep and horrible detail, just to be ABSOLUTELY SURE that the reader knows it's evil. The end result, though, isn't to direct the reader's disgust at the evil-doer, but at the author himself--for giving way too much information I could have lived without for no other reason than to burn it into my skull. Reiteration is not a valid means of persuasion, at least not for me.

I have met people who claim to really enjoy Jordan's detailed descriptions--but I was under the impression that they were at least creative descriptions, and non-redundant. From what you've said here, it sounds like he just uses the same words to describe the same things over and over again. With the reiteration, one more time, I reiterate. :P That's no fun. It's one thing if an author can manage to be suitably varied in his narrative; then, for me, long descriptions are forgivable if not enjoyable. But when it becomes monotonous...no way.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]draegonhawke
2004-11-06 10:17 pm UTC (link)
As for the series mentality....

The way I usually like to see that dealt with is to make parts be able to stand on their own. One of my favorite examples are the two Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever--the firstbook can be taker very well as a stand-alone novel, the first three can be taken as a stand-alone trilogy, or you can take the first trilogy and the second and enjoy it as a cohesive series.

I haven't read Jordan's books, but from what's said here it sounds like they're all more or less dependent on the others, and that's probably not a great way to present the story to readers. Then again, because I haven't read them, that's pretty speculative on my part.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]luna_manar, 2004-11-06 10:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]draegonhawke, 2004-11-06 10:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]luna_manar, 2004-11-06 10:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]otakukeith, 2004-11-07 02:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]heidelopixy, 2008-07-16 06:19 pm UTC

[info]kaiz
2004-11-06 10:12 pm UTC (link)
A heartfelt AMEN here.

I've never read Jordan's books (never could get past the plot summary on the back of the jacket) but Goodkin? Sheesh. I really enjoyed his first book. The second was okay. But then...oi, it all descended into absurdity. The Light/Dark Sisters thing, the Dream Lord guy, the Red Leather S&M Sisters (whatever they were called) with the magical pain-whips, the whole screwy male/female power thing, the MarySue!RichardRahl thing, the lack of plot thing, ad infinitum. I think I could forgive him all that if he actually seemed to be *going* somewhere with all those thousands of pages he's written. But so far, all he's done is roam around a rather boring, implausible world and torture his characters. Heap big yawn, imo.

This is one reason I dread long fantasy series.

Ditto. It's as if publishers (?) are demanding that authors turn what are fundamentally Single Book Ideas (or heck, in some cases, Short Story Ideas) into Franchises. Which qualifies as a Deeply Bad Idea in my book! :-) ::sigh::

(Reply to this)


[info]tiferet
2004-11-06 10:39 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for the warning; so far I've avoided reading either author, and now, I know to continue that policy.

(Reply to this)


[info]billradish
2004-11-06 11:06 pm UTC (link)
...well, I feel better. *snerk* Those sound painful!

I know you have babble about languages at some point, but I think it was specifically on creating non-human languages. My memory is poor. Anyway, I'm going to echo an above comment.

Language rant? Pretty please?

(Reply to this)


[info]polaris_starz
2004-11-06 11:11 pm UTC (link)
It took me two tries to ever finish the first Jordan book, and I got three pages into the second one before I threw it across the room. (Luckily, it was the paperback.) So. BORING. And I hated all the characters. Way to not make me emphasise at all, Jordan. Never tried Goodkind, although I own the first paperback, which I will never read and plan to get rid of.

Tell me, what do you think of Tad Williams, if you've read his things? They're about equal to Goodkind in length but the longest series is a quartet. I quite liked them; I read Otherland and Tailchaser's Song (cats!) and have been collecting more but don't have the time to sit down and read them straight through like I did last summer.

(Reply to this)


[info]kiena_tesedale
2004-11-06 11:20 pm UTC (link)
Ah, Jordan - I spent part of a summer reading all six of the books he had out at the time while I was staying at my sister's place, and I remember throwing the book across the room at one point. I immediately picked up the book and apologized to both it and the cat, but I still think of it fondly. :P

I kept on reading the books up 'till the eighth (ninth?) one, but I did it all sneaky-like. At the beginning of each chapter is a little picture that tells you which character the chapter's POV is in. I simply skipped all the characters I didn't like, and read the ones I did. The 'sub'-plots are so huge, they stood on their own, and I enjoyed it well enough. You know, until he dropped one of the main three characters and didn't mention them once in a freakin' 1000 page book! Twice!! (Okay, they were different characters. Still). Bastard.

Also, as a side note: Shai'tan (not a coincidence that it sounds like Satan! Bye-bye, subtlety!) Okay, I'm completely lame. I didn't even notice that.

And you know, I'd been meaning to pick up Goodkind for a while, because he came recommended from someone who I'll never trust again - I'm glad I read this before I did it. Now I won't have to bother. :P Good rant, just in general.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Shai'tan
[info]pne
2005-05-24 06:06 pm UTC (link)
Also, as a side note: Shai'tan (not a coincidence that it sounds like Satan! Bye-bye, subtlety!) Okay, I'm completely lame. I didn't even notice that.

I believe that the Arabic form of the name "Satan" is "Shaitan". Hmm... even more similar. Coincidence? Probably.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Heh. This is the LJ version of necroposting... - [info]slimshadowen, 2005-09-07 05:04 pm UTC

[info]edda
2004-11-06 11:23 pm UTC (link)
I took a brave stab at Jordan's first book and got bored with it; Goodkind's I've had the sense to avoid from merely perusing the cover art. My rule of thumb is that anything Michael Whelan paints the cover for is automatically going to be crap.

Other authors to avoid: Terry Brooks (The Sword of Shannara is such a blatant LOTR ripoff I'm surprised there wasn't legal action taken by the Tolkien estate) and Dennis L. McKiernan, who rips off Tolkien (the Iron Tower trilogy) and even adds hobbits to the mix (calls them "warrows"). Terry Brooks, at least, stick to typical Standard Bad Fantasy Writing; McKiernan's is so bad it needs to be beaten to death with a shovel.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]maureenlycaon
2004-11-07 04:00 am UTC (link)
My rule of thumb is that anything Michael Whelan paints the cover for is automatically going to be crap.

I can think of at least one exception to this rule straight off: the Elric of Melnibone series by Michael Moorcock. Sure, today they look simplistic and more than a bit dated, but they were head and shoulders above most of the fantasy of their time.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]kalorlo, 2004-11-07 06:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]calador, 2004-11-07 10:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]saccharine_sift, 2006-04-19 07:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tsuki_no_bara, 2004-11-07 01:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkel, 2004-11-07 02:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]almeda, 2005-04-15 04:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]b2wm, 2006-05-24 05:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2004-11-08 08:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ciaan, 2004-11-09 08:13 am UTC

[info]lemurkat
2004-11-06 11:44 pm UTC (link)
"Shai'tan" is derived from Islamic", I came across the name in "Fangs of Ka'ath":

Shaitan (Satan) is the source of evil in the world. The plural name is Shayatin. He always tries to misguide and mislead people. The Qur'an states that Satan is not an angel but a member of the Jinn. His other name is Iblis.

(source: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/glossary/term.SHAITAN.html)

I've got so sick of customers telling me I need to read Robert Jordon that I can no longer be bothered giving the "I'll add it to my list" answer (it's a long list) and now reply "I'm waiting until he finishes it and releases a summarised version". I've also been told I need to read Goodkind and reading this, I can't see why. Tad Williams, however, I do feel inclined to read more of, but mostly I avoid the "generic" style fantasy in favour of the more historic/emotional fantasy or the highly imaingative stuff that's come out for young adults.

Indeed, the only reason I can possibly see to read these books is so I can write scathing reviews of them in my LH, and what's the point really?

Kat

(Reply to this)


[info]renatus
2004-11-06 11:49 pm UTC (link)
Hi there, reader via friends-of-friends list for a while, first time commenter. I've been quietly jumping for joy that FINALLY, someone else who's read Goodkind actually understands why I nearly threw the second book into a wall after I finished with it and never read any farther.

Goodkind’s filler material is also description, but not of the landscape and clothing the way that Jordan’s is. It’s sadism, rape, torture of every description (the minor villain in the first book who likes to rape little boys is made to cut off his own testicles and eat them), more rape, killing, more rape, plague, more rape, murder, and more rape.

This is what bothered me the worst - well, except for the "Oh! Look at all of the horrible things I'm doing to my protagonists and they'll never survive, boohoo, except that they will and I'll make things all cheery at the end only to plunge them into another situation of UTTER DESAPIR again at the beginning of the next book!" thing. Anyone who feels the need for their filler to be rehashings of the worst depravities of humans, in endless boring detail, needs to start paying me psychiatrist fees for listening to them work out their issues.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]luna_manar
2004-11-07 01:05 am UTC (link)
This is only semi-related to the original comment...but it comes to mind, that there really shouldn't BE any "filler" material in a book in the first place, yes? I mean, "filler" implies something that is not really useful, that can be done without and is there to take up space and time. Unless there is a required wordcount from the publisher, why take up extra space if it's not needed to begin with, no matter how good said "filler" is?

Just made me think of that, sorry for hijacking your comment, renatus.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]renatus, 2004-11-07 06:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]yaoihuntresse, 2007-03-30 09:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]renatus, 2007-03-30 02:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]seawolf10, 2007-07-16 02:57 am UTC

[info]otakukeith
2004-11-07 02:11 am UTC (link)
I'm determined to keep going with Jordan's series to the bitter end, because it has elements that I enjoy - like the implications that our own legends are distorted echoes of what happens to the characters, and the overarching plot, even if it is cliched. I just wish he'd stick to the straight road and get to the end instead of wasting so much time on minor characters squabbling. The more annoying elements in his books (stupid female characters, gratuitous nudity, etc.) are something I tend to mock rather than get angry about. I suppose his books are a kind of guilty pleasure for me, or perhaps a voyeuristic train wreck. :D (I actually thought the 9th book was pretty good on the whole - the 10th, now...)

But after reading this rant, I am NEVER EVER going near Goodkind. At least, as you say, Jordan is going somewhere, albeit in a geological timeframe. Sounds like Goodkind is just writing the same plot over and over again.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]otakukeith
2004-11-07 10:02 am UTC (link)
Follow-up thought: how about a rant on Themes and Big Issues in fiction next? You've covered some of this sort of ground before in your rants on homosexuality, feminism etc., but I wouldn't mind seeing a general rant on how to put across ideas in stories without coming across as preachy or stupid. I like reading about Ideas, but many authors can't do it, and I'd love to be able to do it myself.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]renatus, 2004-11-07 06:16 pm UTC

[info]maureenlycaon
2004-11-07 04:29 am UTC (link)
I've never read either author (which probably explains why I don't fully appreciate the portions of your rants concerning cliches). Judging from this, I don't need to read them, either.

Supposedly, because their fantasy novels include female characters in prominent roles, they’re “feminist.”

A definition of a true feminist movie: one where two female characters talk to one another about something other than a man, or men. Think about how few movies fit that definition. Maybe it should go for literature, too.

The series is notorious for its violence and gore, beyond what most fantasy series have. (This isn’t a good thing. See point 5). Hundreds and hundreds of women raped are nothing unusual for just one book, and the series now numbers eight.

As a lover of "darkfic", including torturefic and rapefic, I say this in all sincerity: properly done, a little can go a very long way. Improperly done . . . well, it should not be done at all. Piling on multiple rapes and tortures is usually the sign of an incompetent author trying to replace the quality he can't supply with sheer quantity.

And, as [info]renatus points out, he probably also has . . . issues. I got a laugh out of an oddball pulp scifi/action series, The Night Whistlers, because of the author's lovingly detailed descriptions of sadistic evil women torturing innocent young Whistler sympathizers. It was funny because of the author's obvious disapproval of homosexuals, lesbians and BDSM. Return of the Repressed, much?

In fiction meant for an unwary general audience, the way Walter Jon Williams handled it in Hardwired is brilliant. You see that Roon has holos of refugee children all over his bizarre house; you see that his servants are all children in white clothing; you see him touching that little girl's hair and see the look in her eyes (that alone was nearly unbearable for me); when the naive Cowboy doesn't get what's happening, Sarah tells him bluntly, "He's fucking them." There are no descriptions of Roon raping children; there don't need to be, because Williams knows his job and does it very well. Just describing those passages gives me the screaming willies.

Also, I think any fic meant to get your jollies off should be appropriately labeled as such, and not marketed as general-audience fiction, but that's another subject.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]criada
2004-11-07 08:00 pm UTC (link)
>>Also, I think any fic meant to get your jollies off should be appropriately labeled as such, and not marketed as general-audience fiction, but that's another subject.<<

God I agree with that. I love kink and sex and polyamory in stories, in fact, I'm probably one of the few people who doesn't hate Laurell Hamilton for being smut. I hate her for many, many other reasons...
What I hate is when I am reading an otherwise normal book, and suddenly I feel as if I've stumbled upon the author whacking off to their own neuroses. I think I can brand Piers Anthony the worst of these. Never, ever read Bio of a A Space Tyrant. Ever.
I am undoubtedly guilty of this myself, and that is why I will probably never seek to get my work published. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]maureenlycaon, 2004-11-09 06:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]pooka, 2004-12-19 04:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]criada, 2004-12-19 08:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pooka, 2004-12-19 10:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mistressrenet, 2005-06-02 03:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]almeda, 2005-04-15 04:54 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]maureenlycaon, 2005-04-15 01:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]almeda, 2005-04-16 04:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mistressrenet, 2005-06-02 03:30 pm UTC
Hmm....
[info]snitchcat
2004-11-07 04:43 am UTC (link)
Interesting rant. I agree with most every point in there.

Jordan started well, but rapidly deteriorated. I believe I got to book 8 or 9 before I gave up. Picked up book 10 to take a look and hadn't read more than 2 lines of the blurb before returning it to the shelf.

As for Goodkind, I got through to the end of #2, then abandoned the entire series. In fact, I'm looking to sell the first two. Glad I didn't read any more of his work.

And Williams. "Memory, Sorrow and Thorn" was good as was "Tailchaser's Song", but I couldn't read "Otherland". It's sitting at the bottom of my 'to read' list. Heh.

Thanks for the rant. It was interesting.

Take care,
Snitchcat.

aka, Snitch.

(Reply to this)


[info]cygna_hime
2004-11-07 04:48 am UTC (link)
...See, I read the first Jordan book fairly recently, realized it was crud of incredible cruddity, and gave up in disgust. And yet, I have at least one friend who has read all ten multiple times, and still likes them. I do not understand this friend's reasoning.

As far as I recall, Mat was the only character who did anything remotely interesting in that book, and I gather he gets forgotten, so forget it. The rest was bad!cliche after bad!cliche after stupid!generic!stereotype, and I wanted to kill them all sooooo badly. Especially whatever-her-name-is wizard-woman, whom everyone believed and who was going to 'reform' Nynaeve, or something, by the purity of her truth and speshulness and ugh it hurts to type this crud. (I kind of liked Nynaeve at the beginning; she was the only sensible one who, yannow, thought that maybe an explanation was in order before, not after, dragging them all off who-knows-where. Then she got Angst, and I hate Angst.)

I just want to know one thing: HOW can the authors stand to write those stereotypes? Especially the villain ones? Do they not get sucked in to wondering about those characters at least a little? No? Then why the heck are they writing?! (<-Is currently beset by problem, to whit, her 'villain' character is getting more space, psychoanalysis time, etc. than her 'hero' characters. Help?)

These two men are clearly not writers. They don't love the world, take care of all the characters, and pander to reality. They're just glorified hack writers with looooooooong installment novels. Gah. Sturgeon's Law claims another victim.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tacoyaki
2004-11-07 09:19 am UTC (link)
I gave up after I think it was the third book. I'm a busy person and I simply didn't have the time.

Bad!cliches and stupid!generic!stereotypes, my poor head!
It seemed like all of the girl character were melting into basically the same person. Rand annoyed me from the start with getting his father's sword and *poof* he can fight. Some parts of that world interested me, the different peoples that the characters would meet particularly, but I gathered that if I read on I would just be disapointed.

I understand completely with getting sucked into the characters, and it seems if I don't get deep enough into the character I simply throw them away. And my problem is that I've throwing away critical characters... Gah, and spending too much with others ><;

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]tavalya_ra
2004-11-07 06:31 am UTC (link)
I gave up on Jordan in the eighth book of his series, and Terry Goodkind in the fourth

Ditto for me on Jordon. After Book One of Terry Goodkind, I was tempted to read Book Two just to know how Richard reacted to learning that Darken Rahl is his father (as cliched as it is, I really am a sucker for the main villain being the hero's father plot twist), but realized that it just was not worth it.

His villain is the Dark One, and he will take over the world Because.

Thanks to Jordon, I'm allergic to Dark Ones. Very early on, I promised myself I would never ever write one.

His villain's name is Darken Rahl.

Don't forget that his father's name is Panis Rahl! (That name makes me show my maturity and snicker.)

Rand was an ass out of which Robert Jordan could pull anything he needed, not a character.

::snicker::

P.S. Sorry for the comment spam over in [info]aventalar. LiveJournal said it could not post my comment- it was lying to me. -_-

(Reply to this)


[info]marumae
2004-11-07 07:11 am UTC (link)
Hell hath no fury like a Limyaael ranting on popular fantasies that are teh sux. Seriously, though very informative rant. I was aware on Jordan but Goodkind was new to me, I tried reading his books once but had to take them back unfinished, I was tempted to get them out again but not know. Good lord is there really that much rape? O_@;

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tacoyaki
2004-11-07 09:24 am UTC (link)
I've decided for that reason that I shall never even touch one of Goodkind's books ever.

But the disturbing part is that there has to be people reading his book and liking them! Or at least buying the others anyway, it got 4/5 stars on Amazon. *shudders and runs to find a toilet*

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]marumae, 2004-11-07 11:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tacoyaki, 2004-11-07 12:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]maureenlycaon, 2004-11-08 07:02 am UTC

[info]ursulav
2004-11-07 07:16 am UTC (link)
I read the first Goodkind book and said "Oh, well, that was a little graphic, but not too bad..."

I picked up the second one, got about halfway through, and sold it to a used bookstore in disgust.

I think I got five books into the Wheel of Time and got so sick everybody being in love with Rand that I gave it up and have been much happier.

In a lot of ways, they reminded me of the Clan of the Cave Bear books. One character does everything, is present at everything, can do anything, discovers everything, and is wonderful and everyone loves them--and the fantasy versions didn't even have mammoths.

(Reply to this)


[info]tarheel
2004-11-07 07:28 am UTC (link)
Too true. Could you do a rant on Mercedes Lackey next? Pretty please?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

?
[info]tacoyaki
2004-11-07 09:32 am UTC (link)
Why Mercedes Lackey?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: ? - [info]marumae, 2004-11-07 11:37 am UTC
Re: ? - [info]tacoyaki, 2004-11-07 12:01 pm UTC
Well, yeah. - [info]cygna_hime, 2004-11-07 01:59 pm UTC
Re: Well, yeah. - [info]marumae, 2004-11-07 02:51 pm UTC
Re: Well, yeah. - [info]tacoyaki, 2004-11-07 09:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dinpik, 2004-11-07 10:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]archangelbeth, 2007-04-11 07:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dinpik, 2007-04-13 05:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]archangelbeth, 2007-04-13 05:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dinpik, 2007-04-16 02:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dinpik, 2007-04-16 02:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]archangelbeth, 2007-04-16 08:52 pm UTC

[info]mhari
2004-11-07 08:46 am UTC (link)
Heh. I stuck it out through the first spoke-and-a-half of the Wheel of Time because I had heard it was so TEH ROXXORZ. Somewhere in the second book I gave up in despair. So. BORING. So very boring.

Glad to know it's not just that I'm a plebe. ;)

Also have to second [info]draegonhawke above -- Stephen Donaldson has his flaws, but he knows a) when to quit and b) when not to shoot his plot in the foot.

(Reply to this)


[info]meghan_mitsumi
2004-11-07 10:57 am UTC (link)
You just convinced me. And saved me hours of reading.
I've been putting off reading WoT and SoT . . . Now I'll just do it forever.

(Reply to this)


[info]alex_von_cercek
2004-11-07 11:02 am UTC (link)
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I read some Goodkind, and I hated it. Couldn't put my finger on what, precisely.
Your rant revealed the answer.

I couldn't put my finger on, it because my finger was too small. The answer was EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING bothered me.

Now I'll never have to go through the pain of reading WoT as well.

(Reply to this)


[info]avrelia
2004-11-07 12:33 pm UTC (link)
I am very happy that your rants are the only way I would ever get acquainted with these books

he creates a statue that converts people from socialism to capitalism, despite no previous experience carving stone.

::dies laughing:: That’s all I needed to know about his books, really.

(Reply to this)

I had a somewhat different experience...
[info]tainted4life
2004-11-07 12:51 pm UTC (link)
I admit that I picked up the Sword of Truth series at like the sixth or seventh book. Whichever one is about the statues, and Richard being kidnapped, and etc., etc., etc.
So I read it, and I realized straight off the bat that it was preachy. And the only reason I forged on with it was 'cause it was preachy in a direction I liked (I'm very much a capitalist, "invisible hand", "atoms of self interest" kind of girl when it comes to the economy).
So, because I was like 13 and I was dumb as a rock, I liked it. I'm not sure why. Maybe I just couldn't see the crap that it was.

It's been a year and a half since I've read any of the SoT books, simply because I'm sick of that shit. Richard is a Gary Stu. Kahlan could have been cool (aside from Teh Everpresent Angst about "no babies!" in latter parts), but he completely ignores her, now. Cara could have been freaking AWESOME. But now she doesn't do anything. ::kicks Goodkind::

He DID do one good thing: Nikki, his OH SOE ABUSED sorceress character's troubled past was kind of lame. But he handled the abuse somewhat decently. I liked that instead of showing all the negative qualities Christianity can take in the hands of a crazy person, he simply exaggerated the good qualities until they were bad. Ie. Made Nikki give and give and give and give and do and do and do and do for people until she was ready to drop. Not enough authors do that, when they're bashing parts of Christianity. ...and yes, I admit that during some of the Nikki parts, I was thinking, "what, is this anti-he-who-clotheth-the-poor-clotheth-Me?" I was a strange little 13 year old.

(Reply to this)


Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…