Terry Goodkind, Fantasy Writer

A scene from a serious work of philosophical literature covering important human themes

A frequent claim you saw in yesterday's post was Goodkind's hammering home the idea that he is not a fantasy writer. In fact, he seems outright offended by the notion, due to his excessively negative view of fantasy as a genre. Make no mistake; nowhere in either chat did Goodkind suggest that he was mainly describing run-of-the-mill, dime-a-dozen guns for hire who write one or two books for Wizards of the Coast or have one or two awful novels published that no one reads (the latter of which makes up the majority of any genre). He was suggesting that there are no other writers of "his calibre" working in the fantasy genre. He was saying that fantasy is entirely, 100% worthless. This is why his work can't be considered fantasy.

I'm not going to spend too much time rehashing it all, but the response from readers is usually along the lines of "In what way are his novels not fantasy?" I'm always impressed by how Goodkind can expound upon that for paragraphs but never really answer that question. He talks a lot about "misapplying the fundamentals" of his novels, but he keeps describing what the "fundamentals" are in very vague terms. "Important human themes". "Philosophical discussions". "Explorations of heroism and the nobility of the human spirit". This sounds pretty, but in what way do Goodkind's novels actually exhibit this? Is this simply another case of informed ability, or perhaps I should say informed content, where Goodkind is absolutely certain that his novels contain a depth and profundity that is simply not there when examined? Most readers say yes, as even his fans mostly see these novels for what they are: fantasy, and rather standard fantasy at that. Have a look through the chats from yesterday, where Goodkind has to keep reminding his fans to stop looking at his novels as fantasy.

Goodkind mostly seems to blame his publisher, TOR Books, which is a company primarily known for producing...fantasy. This is why they wanted his book. Hell, this is why his agent shopped it to them. Goodkind complains that they consigned him to the midden heap that is fantasy by marketing it under their fantasy brand, by calling it The Sword of Truth series and by putting "a red dragon" on the cover of the book.

As I said in my last post, Goodkind seems to be ignoring the fact that the book is called Wizard's First Rule, that it was he, and not TOR, who called it The Sword of Truth series, that he chose to set his "deep philosophical work" in a pure fantasy setting, that there is indeed a red dragon in his book (I will never get over how he uses weasel words to imply that the dragon is an invention of TOR) and that he willingly signed with TOR knowing that they were primarily a fantasy publishing house. He actually at one point calls it an "accident" that he was signed with TOR. Why they didn't immediately drop him is beyond me. He might have made them some money, but he's definitely not their top earner and he's never had a kind word to say about them.

I can already tell you that not one person picked up their first copy of a Goodkind novel thinking "man, this sure looks like an intellectual exploration of the human spirit". Goodkind might blame TOR for that, but let's look at an alternate reality for a moment in which Goodkind's books were marketed from the get-go as he says he always wanted them to be.

The cover would look something like this:

Because this doesn't say "fantasy"

And let's go the extra mile and say that under Goodkind's direction the plot description given on the inside cover would deliberately play up the philosophical angle, in the case of Wizard's it being Richard learning about how easily people are deceived by a tyrant's campaign of misinformation, and that TOR marketed it as general fiction, and thus it was racked as such in book stores. Or, heck, while we're imagining, let's suggest that instead of TOR, he was published by some other publishing house like Penguin or Bantam.

Let's picture Joe Reader, a normal guy who enjoys reading but isn't into nerdy stuff like fantasy, browsing through the general fiction aisle in Barnes & Noble. He sees a cover like the one above but with the title Wizard's First Rule and he wonders what it could be about. He reads the cover description and thinks "okay, let's check this out", perhaps imagining a parallel situation to Goebbels's propaganda campaigns for Hitler. He sits down for an hour or so to read the first bit and get a feel for it.

Now go to Amazon.com and read the opening sample given there. What do you think Joe's reaction is gonna be? Do you think he would say "Hmm. What a thoughtful and intellectual look at deep philosophical themes"?

Or do you think his reaction would be "this is a fantasy novel. Wonder what it's doing in the general fiction section?" I think we all know the answer. No one, ever, would have read the actual content of Wizard's First Rule, regardless of how it was marketed, who marketed it or what was on the cover, and come away not thinking of it as a fantasy novel. Every single person on Earth who isn't Terry Goodkind would have, apparently, "misapplied the fundamentals" of that novel. Yes, over time Goodkind garnered a number of fans (that he calls "true fans" or "followers") who were desperate to earn his approval and feel like they were smart, and all of them parrot Goodkind's claims (I've run into a few), but I'm willing to bet even those fans recognized Goodkind's novels as fantasy before he started insisting they stop. And as I've said before, even the most generous reviews of Goodkind's works still call them fantasy.

When the entire world sees your work in a different way than you see it, it's not the world that's wrong. It's you. As I said in the last post, intent is nothing. Perception is everything. Goodkind chose to write a series set in a fictional world that feels very similar to the fantasy worlds of Eddings, Williams or Jordan (among numerous others), he chose to include magic, demons, dragons, etc., and then he gets mad that people call it fantasy.

Now, the thing is, I actually think I know why he thinks he can get away with calling his work something other than fantasy. It's undeniable that such works as Peter Pan, Gulliver's Travels and Alice in Wonderland are fantasy stories, but it's also undeniable that they are not primarily thought of or remembered that way; they are remembered as classic literature. We don't usually recall them as "classics of the fantasy genre" nor do we refer to JM Barrie, Jonathan Swift or Lewis Carroll as "fantasy novelists". Similarly, novels like Brave New World, 1984 and Anthem are very clearly science fiction, but they are primarily thought of as serious literature with important themes presented, and it's no coincidence that the last one I mentioned was written by Ayn Rand. Today, we don't call Ayn Rand (or George Orwell or Aldous Huxley) a "science fiction novelist". In fact it's mostly her philosophy of Objectivism we remember her for, and even her non-genre work like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are remembered mostly because she explored the philosophy she founded through her books. This would be the same philosophy that Goodkind himself subscribes to, and his themes are all strongly Objectivist.

I don't know how old Goodkind was when he read Anthem, nor do I know if he was already writing himself at the time, and a lot of people seem to think Goodkind became a hardcore Objectivist well after being published, but based on him saying he picked Anthem to read because it's short, that makes me think he was younger. Regardless, he found himself turned on to Rand's writings because he already thought the way she does, and it's possible (though I doubt it) that he got into writing hoping to be the next Ayn Rand. Far more likely is that much later, after he'd seen some success, he started to think of himself as the next Ayn Rand, and got upset that the rest of the world did not.

One thing that is true is that some modern-day writers are generally not thought of as genre fiction writers even though they do write genre fiction. Kurt Vonnegut's novels are strongly intellectual, but there's really no question that novels like Cat's Cradle, Slaughterhouse Five or Slapstick are sci-fi novels, and that's even how they're described. In some places, he's even racked in sci-fi, but certainly he's mostly thought of as a general fiction writer. Diana Gabaldon is typically thought of as a historical fiction writer thanks to her Outlander and Lord John novels, but still, the heroine of the Outlander series finds herself cast back in time by what is apparently magic. So why are people such as she and Vonnegut racked in general fiction?

The answer is that it's because the dominant aspects of their books really aren't the sci-fi/fantasy themes. For the same reason that we primarily think of 1984 as a scathing indictment of socialism and big government gone mad and not primarily as a futuristic science fiction story, the dominant themes, the fundamentals, you might say, of Gabaldon's novels is the historical and romantic aspects. The fundamentals of Kurt Vonnegut were his meditations on war, religion and politics, which were the issues that lie at the heart of his novels. Goodkind evidently wants to be seen this way as well, repeatedly suggesting that the fundamentals of his works are philosophy, romance and exploration of the human condition, or something like that. And there's no denying he includes heavy Objectivist themes in his books, particularly his later ones, not that all writers don't include their views in their works.

Why is it that a majority of readers do not see Goodkind's books that way? Well, for the same reason we see Star Wars as primarily a fun blockbuster sci-fi movie series and not a philosophical discussion about allowing fear to control you, or an exploration on the concept of following in your parents' footsteps. Because it's not the fantasy in Goodkind's books that's immaterial and unimportant. On the contrary, they're quite central. Goodkind's themes, moral points, life lessons? Hardly noticed by a great majority of readers.

I've suggested that Wizard's First Rule's theme is also what the rule itself is: that people are easily fooled into believing falsehoods when motivated by their fears or desires. I also said that it undercuts its own theme by having Richard gullibly swallow everything Kahlan and Zedd tell him and never thinks to question it. But it goes further; I'm being very generous when I describe the theme of this book. Most of the book consists of a very cliche'd fantasy story about an orphan rustic from an isolated corner of the world who's whisked away by a beautiful woman and a powerful wizard on a quest to defeat an evil warlock who has plans of destroying/ruling the world. The theme, such as it is, feels tacked on, and this gets worse in the books that follow, especially books three, four and five. You can sense the moment when Goodkind the author leaves the room and Goodkind the moralist enters. Characters immediately stop what they're doing and moralize for pages and pages. It can be on any subject, because Goodkind wants you to know he has views on these very important topics, like welfare, the poor, lesbianism, racial unrest, conception in rape, you name it. He delivers each diatribe in a heavy-handed manner until he feels like he's said his piece and then he'll go right back to the very stereotypical fantasy plot that drives his purely fantasy story.

And what's more, I'm convinced that this is the sort of story Goodkind initially wanted to write. Yes, I do in fact believe that he started off wanting to write a fantasy novel.

What makes me think that? Well, for one, he let the mask slip in his own group chats, talking about what he's done to the genre of fantasy. Second, he has, in recent years, actually gone ahead and admitted that fantasy is what he writes. And it's not a coincidence that he waited until fantasy had experienced another "boom" and is now widely thought of as a viable genre. Third, recall what I said about how his first few novels seem to be written with the mindset "this is fantasy, and fantasy includes X, so I'll include X, fantasy writers write this way, so I'll write this way." As I said, badly written fanfic.

Also, from what I understand, initially Goodkind's behavior was pretty much just that of a fantasy author. I have been told, though I cannot find proof, that he even offered cover blurbs for other fantasy writers that followed him, such as Jacqueline Carey. Even in his late 90's interview with TOR, despite some early arrogance, had him openly describing himself as a fantasy author. So what changed?

Well, Goodkind's own arrogance and sense of entitlement likely played a huge role in his progression from just being proud of what he's achieved into openly declaring himself the greatest living writer today. He always had that arrogance, I believe, possibly since childhood, and I understand that in his professional life he tends to surround himself with yes-men who help to inflate his already planet-sized ego. This isn't hard to believe when you look at the activities of Mystar online. Also, his Objectivism likely plays a role, as one of Rand's ideals was the concept of the "ideal man", whom in Goodkind's works is Richard, an acknowledged self-insert for Goodkind himself. Also Objectivism talks a lot about how you are whatever you say you are, and no one else can tell you different. Claiming a fundamental makes that a reality. This is part of why Objectivism is so much horsesh!t.

But what I think are the primary causes are two things; his sales and his inability to handle criticism.

First, let's talk about his sales. I'll expound more on them in a future post, but I will say now that Terry Goodkind is unquestionably a best-selling author. Apparently he attributed his sales to people "recognizing his brilliance" and thus justifying his inflating his own importance in fantasy and the world.

But the second point is the bigger one; Goodkind cannot stand to be criticized, or even questioned, and he seems to really hate it most when said criticism comes from fans. Look at the previous post and how his ire comes to the forefront when one of his fans dares to question anything about his works. And that's the thing, with success comes detractors. Every writer has them. But Goodkind, it would seem, wasn't prepared for them.

Throughout the late 90's, Goodkind would have faced innumerable interviews and conventions, and book store appearances, and other situations where he would be face to face with fans. And he likely expected fawning worship. What he got, unquestionably, because it's what all authors get, was a healthy mix of fans who loved his books and had nothing but praise for him and fans who were less satisfied, along with readers who might even have wanted to like the books, but had some issues they felt had to be addressed. As I've already said that one of Goodkind's biggest issues is his overall lack of consistency, he probably faced a lot of questions regarding why, if "X" is true in Chapter 15, does "X" not hold true in Chapter 35, or why if he was going to spend most of his second and third novels in the Old World (the goddam naaaaames!) did he not bother to expand his map to show us more of that part of his world.

Goodkind's readers likely were general fantasy readers, as well. Thus they likely asked him the sort of questions fantasy authors usually get; which of these two characters would win in a fight, can the sword of truth do "X", explain how magic could be used to do "Y" or whatever. Understand, not a lot of fantasy authors like getting questions like these, but I can only imagine how a man with a colossal ego like Goodkind's must have rankled at it. Likely this is part of what convinced him that all fantasy is one-dimensional and silly, primarily focused on magic and world-building. There is a breed of fantasy reader that focuses on minutiae, but as I've already said, even they will stop sweating the small stuff if you give them an engaging story and characters to focus on. Goodkind seems, based on what he says about what "fantasy readers" are concerned with, to have been met mostly with questions about his magic system and world-building, which should have told him something.

Instead, his take-away was that the problem was not him. Oh, no, it could never be him. The problem was them; their preconceived notions, their expectations of "typical fantasy", their expecting him to be like all the other fantasy writers out there. Well, how dare they? He was selling so much better anyway, which proved that he was better, and what was in his books must be deeper and more thought-provoking than "typical fantasy". He didn't want to explain his magic system. He didn't want to talk about his world, and his history, and what it was based upon and how it works. He didn't want to work any more on his map, which he probably thought was awesome until people began to question him on it.

And why not? Because he saw addressing concerns as admitting fault, and he wanted to see himself as perfect. And therefore, every complaint just sank him deeper into his delusion that the only problem was these idiot readers who just don't get it. They were focusing on stuff that "didn't matter". How dare they look at the fantasy aspects of a fantasy novel!? The only response is to pretend that it isn't fantasy at all.

As I said, in recent years, Goodkind has admitted that he is, and always has been, a fantasy author. Now that people associate the word "fantasy" with best-selling movies and TV series like The Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones, and the perception that it's only for losers who sit around all day playing Dungeons & Dragons is starting to fade, Goodkind can now admit what he spent years denying. We'll see in another section why this change of heart is too little, too late, and quite frankly, I'm amused by his current claims that he actually loves fantasy and always has, and his only problem was the way fantasy at the time was perceived. Read those chat transcripts and google "Terry Goodkind is an asshole" for even more juicy quotes of his and you'll see that this wasn't the case.

Goodkind had an ego, and it wasn't being stroked the way he liked it. But was he a fantasy writer? Absolutely. He was then, he is now and that's how history will remember him. Whether he likes it or not.

In the next post I'm going to talk about the quality of Goodkind's fantasy and his own works vs those he dismisses as "typical fantasy". I've already talked about his general banality as a writer. Now let's talk about how he fails to make good fantasy.