Terry Goodkind

[ginny]

In case some fans have missed it, Goodkind's new book came out this week. Great read.

Ginny

[emb021]

Wasn't aware. Hadn't heard anything.

[ginny]

I got my copy through Barnesandnoble.com. The store must carry it.

[Philip Coates]

Does this book have a title?

[BaalChatzaf]

Does this book have a title?

According to Amazon, here is his latest:

http://www.amazon.com/Law-Nines-Terry-Goodkind/dp/0399156046/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251358719&sr=1-4

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sbeaulieu]

Hell of a guy. I plan on picking up a copy this weekend.

~ Shane

[James Heaps-Nelson]

The title of the new Goodkind is The Law of Nines.

Jim

[Philip Coates]

Thanks Jim.

I clicked on the link and went to Amazon and browsed the blurbs and comments on Goodkind's books. Seems at first browse as if he is either largely or entirely a "fantasy" writer. I don't think I've given that genre a full chance, but so far don't care for it much. I prefer hard science fiction in the sf/f field (Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Niven are the big four). The fact he is an Objectivist is not enough to get me to read him. Nor is the fact someone is a best seller or has rabid fans enough to rouse my curiosity. What I'll sometimes do, before I add something to my huge to be read list, is first read Amazon (blurb, reviews, and especially reader comments). And, if it's a novelist, I'll sample one of his short stories if available. I recently started in on a book of Dostoevsky's short stories, and James Joyce's famous collection. A 'maybe' on one and a strong 'no' on the other so far.

Much of my fiction reading was sci fi well into my twenties. Mostly since then, I've branched out greatly. I've discovered the great classics of literature, for example. I'm always surprised at Oists who complain there is nothing good to read out there, once they have worked their way through Rand and a couple light fiction authors and start to say "now what?" Or who say, based on secondhand information or being turned off by bad stuff, "the culture offers me no good writers."

Sad.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Philip Coates

[ginny]

It's okay, Philip. You don't have to read him. This thread was intended to inform fans.

Ginny

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Thanks Jim.

I clicked on the link and went to Amazon and browsed the blurbs and comments on Goodkind's books. Seems at first browse as if he is either largely or entirely a "fantasy" writer. I don't think I've given that genre a full chance, but so far don't care for it much. I prefer hard science fiction in the sf/f field (Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Niven are the big four). The fact he is an Objectivist is not enough to get me to read him. Nor is the fact someone is a best seller or has rabid fans enough to rouse my curiosity. What I'll sometimes do, before I add something to my huge to be read list, is first read Amazon (blurb, reviews, and especially reader comments). And, if it's a novelist, I'll sample one of his short stories if available. I recently started in on a book of Dostoevsky's short stories, and James Joyce's famous collection. A 'maybe' on one and a strong 'no' on the other so far.

Much of my fiction reading was sci fi well into my twenties. Mostly since then, I've branched out greatly. I've discovered the great classics of literature, for example. I'm always surprised at Oists who complain there is nothing good to read out there, once they have worked their way through Rand and a couple light fiction authors and start to say "now what?" Or who say, based on secondhand information or being turned off by bad stuff, "the culture offers me no good writers."

Phil, this is also not my genre. There are plenty of good writers out there. I was pleasantly surprised by David Guterson's East of the Mountains. Currently, my fiction reading list is short, however, I'm looking forward to Wallace Stegner's Crossing to Safety when I have time. I also have some pretty good adventure nonfiction on my list. Thor Heyerdahl's the Ra Expeditions and Richard Henry Dana's Two Years Before the Mast look appealing. There are always good books to be read.

Edited August 28, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Philip Coates]

> It's okay, Philip. You don't have to read him.

Ginny, are you sure? I thought I had to.

[anonrobt]

Thanks Jim.

I clicked on the link and went to Amazon and browsed the blurbs and comments on Goodkind's books. Seems at first browse as if he is either largely or entirely a "fantasy" writer. I don't think I've given that genre a full chance, but so far don't care for it much. I prefer hard science fiction in the sf/f field (Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Niven are the big four). The fact he is an Objectivist is not enough to get me to read him. Nor is the fact someone is a best seller or has rabid fans enough to rouse my curiosity. What I'll sometimes do, before I add something to my huge to be read list, is first read Amazon (blurb, reviews, and especially reader comments). And, if it's a novelist, I'll sample one of his short stories if available. I recently started in on a book of Dostoevsky's short stories, and James Joyce's famous collection. A 'maybe' on one and a strong 'no' on the other so far.

Much of my fiction reading was sci fi well into my twenties. Mostly since then, I've branched out greatly. I've discovered the great classics of literature, for example. I'm always surprised at Oists who complain there is nothing good to read out there, once they have worked their way through Rand and a couple light fiction authors and start to say "now what?" Or who say, based on secondhand information or being turned off by bad stuff, "the culture offers me no good writers."

Phil, this is also not my genre. There are plenty of good writers out there. I was pleasantly surprised by David Guterson's East of the Mountains. Currently, my fiction reading list is short, however, I'm looking forward to Wallace Stegner's Crossing to Safety when I have time. I also have some pretty good adventure nonfiction on my list. Thor Heyerdahl's the Ra Expeditions and Richard Henry Dana's Two Years Before the Mast look appealing. There are always good books to be read.

It has always struck me as odd how much of fantasy O'ists seem to go for - not just in writing, but in paintings as well, usually with the disclaimer of the technical quality overlaying all else... further, to be so defensive over this blatant irrationality - and worse, that these fantasies most often involve worlds in which feudalism is rampant, as if for some unspoken reason that is a preferred kind of world in which to live... it is one thing to be 'fans' of authors who lived long ago, when science was more speculative [burroughs comes to mind] for they mostly worked within what was known - but even here, others like Verne, who lived earlier, were much more science oriented, less prone to social conditions obviously no longer viable in the world they knew, let alone one in the future...

[sbeaulieu]

Thanks Jim.

I clicked on the link and went to Amazon and browsed the blurbs and comments on Goodkind's books. Seems at first browse as if he is either largely or entirely a "fantasy" writer. I don't think I've given that genre a full chance, but so far don't care for it much. I prefer hard science fiction in the sf/f field (Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Niven are the big four). The fact he is an Objectivist is not enough to get me to read him. Nor is the fact someone is a best seller or has rabid fans enough to rouse my curiosity.

Phil,

To be sure, Terry Goodkind is a fantasy writer (though his intent is to branch out in future novels). However, his approach is not fantasy, rather it is a stage for him to reach a wider audience. Although his 'Sword of Truth' novels includes magic and the typical hallmarks of fantasy novels, his books never focus on the ooohs and ahhs of magic. He identifies them as tools to for character and story progression. It's also targeted for the mature reader and the books are steeped in heavy, philosophical issues.

These are the books that got me interested in Objectivism, well before hearing the name Ayn Rand.

~ Shane

Edited August 28, 2009 by sbeaulieu

[emb021]

Some other time, I'll try to wean Phil away from Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, and Niven and get him to try some more literarily respectable science fiction writers.

As these 4 are considered 'grand masters' of sf, I have no idea why anyone would need to be weaned away from them.

When it comes to "literarily respectable sf writers, whatever those are, are IMO, poor SF writers. They typically have poor understanding of science, much less the conventions of science fiction (usually they rehash some concepts that have been around in sf for decades, don't do anything new or original with the idea, but the literarti, being ignorant of sf, think its 'bold' and 'innovative').

As to the topic of the thread.

While I am not a big fantasy reader, I DID read Goodkind. Overall I found him a pretty good writer, and one who is usually able to do a good job of presenting O'ist ideas in his work. His novels have different levels of philosophy in them. "Faith of the Fallen" is probably the first that really gets into the philosophy. If you are looking for short stories by him, sorry, but as far as I know, he really hasn't done any.

[jriggenbach]

As these 4 [Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, and Niven] are considered 'grand masters' of sf, I have no idea why anyone would need to be weaned away from them.

I'm uninterested in how or what any writer is "considered" (particularly when the considering in question is being done by unnamed parties). I'm interested in what a writer actually is. Speaking very generally, it might be helpful to wean any given reader away from writers like Heinlein and Asimov so that the reader in question can learn the difference between slipshod, half-assed prose and artistically admirable prose.

When it comes to "literarily respectable sf writers, whatever those are, are IMO, poor SF writers. They typically have poor understanding of science, much less the conventions of science fiction (usually they rehash some concepts that have been around in sf for decades, don't do anything new or original with the idea, but the literarti [sic], being ignorant of sf, think its [sic] 'bold' and 'innovative').

Note that Mr. Brown has no idea what writers I'm talking about - or even what sort of writers I'm talking about ("whatever those are") - but he has a very definite opinion of the quality of the science fiction these unspecified writers write. Is it even worth replying to such ignorance, irrespective of how ungrammatically and ineptly it's expressed?

JR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This thread veered off from Terry Goodkind. So, upon request, I split the non-Goodkind posts off and opened a new thread:

Great Literature - Split from Terry Goodkind thread

Michael