Favorite Fantasy Series (High or Low)?

[TheGoldcountry]

"The Dragonbone Chair" and sequel's, "Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn" IIRC (name of the trilogy)

 

[Dinwar]

The show is a bit of a sore spot for a lot of fans.

That's putting it mildly. A relative gave me a copy of the series for Christmas, and I asked, in all honesty, what I'd done to offend them. The series may have worked as a stand-alone series, but it butchered the books themselves.

And again, I don't get why people complain about Goodkind getting "preachy". The Dune series was a far worse offender, and the idea of an author going off on a rant about their pet philosophy is hardly new in fantasy and sci-fi. One might almost say it's symptomatic of those genera. No one seems to have any problem with the flagrant socialism in Asimove's novels. Yet when Goodkind does it, it's considered horrible. My guess is that it's because....

For these reasons I find it hard to believe that Goodkind's series "sucks" or that it's somehow "the worst books [insert name of JREF member here] has ever read". I'll reserve judgement till I actually read them, but I think that it's probably a question of personal aesthetics and ideology, rather than an objective analysis of the writing.

Goodkind is, ostensibly at least, an Objectivist (some issues have arisen in the past 3years that make me question it; Wizard's Fifth Rule and all). Folks on this forum tend to view Objectivism in a very bad light--as in, anything associated with the philosophy is evil by definition, even if the concepts would normally be considered perfectly acceptable. Thus, SoT must necessarily suck in their minds, regardless of the actual writing or story-telling or, in fact, any other aspect at all.

Then, as Akri said, there's the issue with the George R R Martin fans. Honeslty, SoT fans never had any qualms about saying they enjoyed Song of Ice and Fire--it was, for a while, a good series (I lost interest when it became obvious the author had no intention of finishing the series, and started belittling the fans for expecting him to keep up with timetables he presented to them). The SoIaF fans, on the other hand.......Well, I've heard kinder things said towards inter-racial couples by KKK members.

If you want to read worse books, a number come to mind. The original Star Wars trillogy, for example. Or the later Dune novels. Or the Butlerian Jihad Dune novels. Or the Starchild trillogy.

 

[Vortigern99]

The show is a bit of a sore spot for a lot of fans. Rather than translate the books to the screen Sam Raimi decided to remake Xena/Hercules, but with SoT as the backdrop. The resulting show wasn't bad, but it wasn't what we'd been hoping for.

I understand that Raimi and Tapert did not translate the books to the screen on a 1:1 basis. They seem to have taken the characters and basic plot, and assembled something new that drew on the books for inspiration rather than as a direct source. But to say that they "decided to remake Xena/Hercules, but with SoT as the backdrop" is ridiculously inaccurate. Xena and Hercules have a slapstick, unrelentingly goofy tone in which nothing can ever be taken seriously, replete with man-perms and cartoony fights that use physically impossible acrobatics to wink at the audience. The number of times I roll my eyes during a given episode...

The SoT TV series has a dark and comparatively realistic tone, only occasionally leavened by mild humor. It employs very realistic(-looking) combat sequences compared to other fantasy fare. The characters' actions and the performers portraying them have a degree of realism as well that far outstrips the soap-opera-level hamminess of Xena and Herc. I have wept watching episodes of SoT. I have done little but guffaw and shake my head at X & H.

Part of the issue may be that there's a bit of a, let's call it "rivalry", between SoT fans and Song of Ice and Fire fans. Some of the members from the Westeros website made a habit out of trolling the Goodkind forums, and there were incredibly long threads (like, several times longer than the Shroud thread) discussing how much they all thought Goodkind's books sucked.

I dunno if that actually has anything to do with the opinions of posters here, but it's certainly a possibility.

Which seems silly to me because it's a false dichotomy, or at best an invented competition. You can like both; it's not an either/or proposition!

 

[Akri]

I understand that Raimi and Tapert did not translate the books to the screen on a 1:1 basis. They seem to have taken the characters and basic plot, and assembled something new that drew on the books for inspiration rather than as a direct source. But to say that they "decided to remake Xena/Hercules, but with SoT as the backdrop" is ridiculously inaccurate. Xena and Hercules have a slapstick, unrelentingly goofy tone in which nothing can ever be taken seriously, replete with man-perms and cartoony fights that use physically impossible acrobatics to wink at the audience. The number of times I roll my eyes during a given episode...

The SoT TV series has a dark and comparatively realistic tone, only occasionally leavened by mild humor. It employs very realistic(-looking) combat sequences compared to other fantasy fare. The characters' actions and the performers portraying them have a degree of realism as well that far outstrips the soap-opera-level hamminess of Xena and Herc. I have wept watching episodes of SoT. I have done little but guffaw and shake my head at X & H.

Fair enough. Point is, they weren't really trying to make a Sword of Truth show (well, I take that back: some of the people involved tried very hard to make a Sword of Truth show, but there were higher-ups at Disney who hamstrung them at every opportunity). Instead the goal was to make a fantasy show, and to use the Sword of Truth name to get fans watching.

Which seems silly to me because it's a false dichotomy, or at best an invented competition. You can like both; it's not an either/or proposition!

Indeed. And many SoT fans do like both.

 

[PixyMisa]

The problem with the Sword of Truth books is not the philosophy. It's everything else.

 

[Dinwar]

Which seems silly to me because it's a false dichotomy, or at best an invented competition. You can like both; it's not an either/or proposition!

Agreed. I used to like both (I lost interest in SoIaF when I realized the author had no intention of finishing it and in fact started insulting readers who wanted him to do so; it had nothing to do with my enjoyment of any other series of books). It's not the SoT fans that disagree with you.

But to say that they "decided to remake Xena/Hercules, but with SoT as the backdrop" is ridiculously inaccurate.

It may be a tad hyperbolic, but it's certainly not ridiculously inaccurate. The slapstick wasn't the only aspect of Xena/Hercules; those other aspects clearly show through in Leagend of the Seeker.

If you read the books, then watch the TV show, you can clearly see that the two are only related by accident. A few names are the same, and that's all. The plots are wildly different, the characters have no resemblance to those in the books (even physical resemblance--Richard in the books is supposed to be a man big enough that he could stop most fights simply by standing there, while in the TV show he looked scrawnier than me, for example), and the themes are the opposite of those in the books. Leagend of the Seeker is more closely related to Xena and Hercules than to the Sword of Truth novels by any rational measure.

The problem with the Sword of Truth books is not the philosophy. It's everything else.

Thank you for proving my earlier point.

 

[PixyMisa]

Thank you for proving my earlier point.

What point? The writing in SoT is mediocre; the plot idiotic; the putative heroes are loathsome.

The characters in ASoIaF are loathsome too, and I don't like that series either. But the writing is strong enough that I can understand why others find it compelling.

SoT is just plain awful.

 

[Chaos]

What point? The writing in SoT is mediocre; the plot idiotic; the putative heroes are loathsome.

The characters in ASoIaF are loathsome too, and I don't like that series either. But the writing is strong enough that I can understand why others find it compelling.

I think there´s a big difference here: the characters in ASoIaF aren´t meant to be shining heroes, unlike the protagonists of SoT. Loathsome anti-heroes or villain protagonists are more forgivable than loathsome "heroes".

 

[gumboot]

I understand that Raimi and Tapert did not translate the books to the screen on a 1:1 basis. They seem to have taken the characters and basic plot, and assembled something new that drew on the books for inspiration rather than as a direct source.

Actually neither Raimi nor Tapert had much input in the writing of the show. What they originally wanted was a very graphic, direct adaptation of the books (in the vein of Spartacus) but this plan was rail-roaded by executives at ABC who fired the writing team and rewrote the show as the watered-down episodic train wreck called "Legend of the Seeker".

The SoT TV series has a dark and comparatively realistic tone, only occasionally leavened by mild humor. It employs very realistic(-looking) combat sequences compared to other fantasy fare. The characters' actions and the performers portraying them have a degree of realism as well that far outstrips the soap-opera-level hamminess of Xena and Herc. I have wept watching episodes of SoT. I have done little but guffaw and shake my head at X & H.

While LOTS started with relatively adult tones it rapidly descended into the same sort of slapstick, ridiculous plotlines that we saw in "Xena". By season two the writing was so appalling that cast and crew alike used to openly mock it on set. I felt particularly bad for Bruce Spence - a legendary Australian actor forced to play out the most absurd plots and regurgitate the most appalling dialogue.

For me the "jump the shark" moment was episode 13 of Season 2 "Princess" in which Cara has to pretend to be a princess seeking to wed the Margrave of Rothenburgh so the team can sneak in to rescue Kahlan, with Zedd masquerading as Cara's elderly female chaperone and naturally attracting the romantic interests of a guard. Vomit. Standard slapstick Xena fare.

 

[gumboot]

I love Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. Faith of the Fallen may be my favorite book. However, every time I've mentioned it people go on and on about how much it sucks, usually people who haven't read them (or skimmed them) or who object to the author having a point of view (SoT has NOTHING on the Dune series when it comes to over-emphasis on philosophy). Even people who like the series have to take pot-shots, apparently. Hardly worth it, just to say something no one cares about anyway.

My point is, this is a self-selecting group. You don't want to hear about people enjoying Goodkind, and people who do don't bother to speak up.

I've never quite understood the raging hatred of his books either. I've always just assumed it's a product of the later books, as I've only read the first two and I really enjoyed both of them. I picked up the first five or six books in the series in the clean-up from the LOTS TV series but since then I've moved my reading to Kindle and I've got so much already on my "to read" list, I'm not sure I'll ever make it back to read any more. But thus far at least I find the works reasonably decent.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The Twelve Kingdoms series is one of my favourites. The author plays with Chinese myth, so it might not be the same category as others here. The characters are flawed, but sympathetic and grow over the journeys. While that sounds really basic, I have had a lot of trouble with that.

But no, Goodkind deserves the hate. In would explain in a ridiculously pontificating speech, but my girlfriend just got kidnapped and raped again and I need to spend half a book on being tortured by lesbian dominatrices with magical torture dildos. Yes, I did read the books (classic faux-defense there, along with complaining about haters). I rank them higher than Twilight because Goodkind actually intended his horribleness honestly.

 

[Akri]

But no, Goodkind deserves the hate. In would explain in a ridiculously pontificating speech, but my girlfriend just got kidnapped and raped again and I need to spend half a book on being tortured by lesbian dominatrices with magical torture dildos. Yes, I did read the books (classic faux-defense there, along with complaining about haters). I rank them higher than Twilight because Goodkind actually intended his horribleness honestly.

I can get why some people might not enjoy the books, but I will never understand the need to justify that dislike via exaggerations and falsehoods.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I can get why some people might not enjoy the books, but I will never understand the need to justify that dislike via exaggerations and falsehoods.

C'mon, I left out the insanely pretentious lessons about humanity, society, and absolute Truth.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Probably because I was imagining rape scenes.

 

[Dinwar]

Yes, I did read the books (classic faux-defense there, along with complaining about haters).

Reading and comprehending are two different things, apparently. It's amazing how many errors you've put into a single sentence. And we're not talking errors in interpretation--you can't even get basic facts about the story right!

...but my girlfriend just got kidnapped and raped again and I need to spend half a book on being tortured by lesbian dominatrices with magical torture dildos.

This is an epix fail.

The Mord-Sith were never portrayed as lesbians, at least not in general. Two specific Mord-Sith happened to be lesbians, but it was pretty clear that they were simply two M-S who happened to be lesbians. Cara, for example, is straight. Also, complaining about sexual diversity in fantasy is simply ridiculous. Oh, horror! Goodkind's not a homophobic coward!!!!

Second, the agiel were not magice torture dildos. Mord-Sith used them in sex, but only to increase pain (rather basic physiology). They were not sexual devices, but devices for inflicting pain. The fact that Mord-Sith used them during intercourse does not make them sexual objects; I know people who use rope during intercourse, but for some reason no one complains that wooden sailing ships are erotic.

There was never a book where Richard was tortured by Mord-Sith while Kahlan was captured. When Kahlan got captured the Mord-Sith were on Richard's side. And there was never a time you could call them boyfriend/girlfriend. They went from team members on the same mission to betrothed to married. A pedantic point, yes, but considering the lies in your post (and there's no other word for such mischaracterizations) I consider it justified.

Kahlan didn't get raped very often if you read the books. ATTEMPTED rape, sure--but considering Kahlan's power it never seemed to work out well.

Finally, with the exception of the agiel (which you've completely mischaracterized) EVERY SINGLE THING YOU'VE SAID, AND WORSE can be said about George R R Martin's works. Most--again, and worse--can be said about Wheel of Time. Yet for some reason, they make Goodkind's books horrible, while they make those books realistic.

I honestly don't care if you enjoy Goodkind's works or not. I'm a male that went through high school as a fan of Enya; there's nothing you can do outside of actually murdering me that I haven't experienced because of what I enjoy (yes, someone tried to murder me over that issue--it was one reason I was on a hit list when the cops caught the guy), and I learned a long time ago to not care what others think of my taste in art. But the flagrant double-standards and the fact that you feel justified in lying about the books is something I simply cannot tollerate. If you don't like them, fine, but at least be honest.

What point? The writing in SoT is mediocre; the plot idiotic; the putative heroes are loathsome.

The writing is very good; the plot is genious; the heroes are paragons of virtue.

I have given every bit as much justification for my views as you have. However, I don't pretend that I've said anything profound or convincing. In contrast, everyone here assumes that simply insulting Goodkind is proof enough of the validity of the accusations.

Secondly, this is a thread about our favorite fantasy books. Yet for some reason, when someone says they like Goodkind people feel obliged to insult and attack the books. Note that no one is doing that with Martin's works, or Jordon's, or really anyone else's.

 

[Akri]

C'mon, I left out the insanely pretentious lessons about humanity, society, and absolute Truth.

 

[Dinwar]

C'mon, I left out the insanely pretentious lessons about humanity, society, and absolute Truth.

Right, because those NEVER happen in fiction!

Oh, wait.....No.....They're actually as common as any other aspect of story-telling in the genra. TV Trope has a page that goes on and on and on and on and ON regarding this specific aspect of story-telling (you should enjoy it--most there hate Goodkind as much as you appear to).

Again, it's not that I think you should even like the books--it's that your arguments would never be accepted if they weren't directed towards two authors (Ayn Rand and Terry Goodkind). I'd be willing to wager one of my better daggers that YOU would never accept these arguments if they were directed at a book you found tollerable.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Sorry, but that defence spells it out better than I could have. Seriously.

And your ultimate defence is a tu toque?

I don't object to aesops (and I actually prefer writings with strong ones), but Goodkind's writing beats you over the head in the most brain dead possible manner with the silliest Deep Truths one could imagine. (Never read Martin or WoT, so I can't comment on those in comparison.)

TVTropes can burn in Hell, but that is another thread.

 

[Akri]

And your ultimate defence is a tu toque?

Actually, the ultimate defense is that your tastes are not the only valid tastes, and your opinion of a book is not the only valid opinion.

Out of curiosity, why did you read the books, plural, if you clearly developed a hatred of the writing with Wizard's First Rule? Most people stop reading books they hate.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Actually, the ultimate defense is that your tastes are not the only valid tastes, and your opinion of a book is not the only valid opinion.

But then these threads would be so dull.

Out of curiosity, why did you read the books, plural, if you clearly developed a hatred of the writing with Wizard's First Rule? Most people stop reading books they hate.

The only reason why anyone does--the rape porn.