Where Goodkind Turns Bad

Goodkind used to look kinda badass. What happened?

Up until now in my posts, Goodkind has really only been shown to be a mediocre writer with some crazy ideas. That describes a lot of fantasy writers. But here's where sh!t gets real. Here's where Goodkind turns truly bad.

Before I go on, many of you are probably wondering why I stopped at character studies and haven't really gone into detail about what's in the books. The answer is that I am trying to convince myself that it's worth going back and reading this crap again just to really pick apart how bad it truly is when there are other writers I'd prefer to read. I've heard it said that life's too short to waste time on books you're not enjoying. One of these days I might crack and read them anyway, but for now, at least some of the work has been done for me.

I truly encourage you to visit IANXFALCON's wonderful sporking of the first book in this series, and Talisman's Tower, where he's sporked the first four and plans to do the whole series. Before you do, I should warn you that neither site is complete yet, and I'm kinda concerned that Talisman has given up. It's been over a year since he updated his spork of Temple of the Winds, and he was so close to finishing it as well.

IANXFALCON is the one I encourage you to read first, because even though she's only done one book thus far (and isn't finished), she goes into quite a bit of depth and genuinely explores the reasons why the book is so bad. She's the one who helped disabuse me of the notion that the first book is good and it's only later that the series starts to get bad. Oh no, the flaws that readers noticed in later books are heavily present in the first. It's taken her nearly three years to get through this beast, and I don't blame her because reading it is a chore. One of the chief reasons I don't know if I'm up for it myself. After you've read her sporking, read Talisman's from the start to finish. He's pretty funny, and it will give you an idea what to expect in future volumes.

But honestly, even what I've already told you will give you enough of an idea of what you'll get when you read Terry Goodkind; a fairly stereotypical fantasy world with a fairly stereotypical setup and stereotypical characters trying to stop a stereotypical evil wizard from taking over the world. In the second book we go a little Harry Potter as Richard is kidnapped and taken off to a wizarding school. Okay, I'm being a bit silly with that one, but again, the chief plot is Richard being taken to be trained and Kahlan discovering that their actions in the last book have opened the door for the Keeper of the Underworld to manifest in the mortal world. The third book mostly focuses on a Church Militant stand-in who's trying to stamp out magic, and also introduces the Imperial Order who has the same goal. Sigh.

One thing that is true is that Goodkind ramps up the preachiness as the series goes on with book six, Faith of the Fallen being little more than a giant objectivist rant. It's also true that the preachiness starts a lot earlier than we think (I first noticed it in the third book, but it's present in the first two), and that Goodkind delivers his diatribes with all the subtlety of a knife in the throat, hammering you with his (oddly very simplistic and often contradictory) moral messages by stopping his story dead and having his characters (usually Richard) orate on them for chapters at a time. It got worse and worse until he basically just wrote a book that was 3% plot and 97% rant, and apparently this was enough to make him believe that he was no longer a fantasy writer and had elevated the genre past where it ever could go before he got there.

So now we're gonna examine some of the stuff Goodkind has said over the years that has made him, in many circles, persona non grada, but also, I believe, has made his devoted followers (yes, followers) all that much more devoted.

The problem was already making itself evident in the late 90's, when Goodkind was interviewed by TOR books. I cannot find this interview online anywhere (it's been removed from TOR's website) but from what I recall of it, mostly he kept the horrible to a minimum, but it was one of the earliest examples of Goodkind talking about what other fantasy writers do versus what he does, and the idea that most fantasy readers are attracted by the magic. In essence, he was already suggesting that most people who like to read fantasy are immature and silly, and only want silly things like magic, but that his focus is on story and character.

But then came 2003. Naked Empire had just been released and Goodkind's sales were excellent. He was in the full throws of his delusions of grandeur, which apparently were somewhat muted earlier on. USA Today hosted a fan chat with Goodkind in which he answered questions from fans around the country. And it was hear that the height of Goodkind's arrogance, grand-standing and attitude of entitlement first reared its ugly head. It would only get worse from there. Let's look at some of the questions asked and Goodkind's answers:

Littleton Colorado: Have you considered writing anything outside of the world in The Sword of Truth series?

Terry Goodkind: Yes. My interest is in telling stories about heroic figures. In many ways, the fantasy genre is a hindrance to that and so I do consider other ways to tell stories that revolve around important human beings. For me, the biggest interest is the fun of writing interesting tales, and there are a lot of different ways to do that. I've thought about writing other stories that are in the same world in a different time, and ultimately, what I'd like to do is write contemporary fiction that general fiction readers are most drawn to. That's by far my largest audience, is general fiction and not genre readers.

...Fantasy is a hindrance to writing about heroic figures? Since when? Has Goodkind not heard of the subgenre "Heroic fantasy"? In fact, that's what fantasy began as; stories of larger-than-life heroes. I've said before that Richard is himself a larger-than-life hero that could only exist in the world Goodkind has created. Also notice the phrase "important human themes". This is something we'll be seeing again (and again). Goodkind is convinced that he, and he alone, focuses on "important human themes" while other fantasy writers focus on magic and world-building. As we'll see in this interview.

Weymouth, MA: What is your work routine, meaning do you have a set number of pages or aword count; do you write in the mornings, et cetera.

Terry Goodkind: I never set a goal of so many words or so many pages in one day because then it ends up like a school project on a Sunday trying to fill up a three-page essay that ends up more wordy than important. The way I work is I write 12-14 hours a day, seven days a week, and I maintain total focus on telling the story the best way I know how. There are times such as the poem that Lunetta recited in the book "Blood of the Fold" that's not even a page long and took me two days to write.

Sometimes I'll spend several hours on a single paragraph, making it say precisely what I'm trying to convey. And there are some days when I get 20 pages done. But my focus always remains on telling the story.

I'm including this one because it goes back to my initial statement that Goodkind's writing feels forced and unnatural. This might be why. But it doesn't explain why so much of his stuff seems to contain awkward, repetitive sentence structure and especially the feeling that he's making it up as he goes. Nothing about the end result of Goodkind's writing process suggests a painstaking, tinkering approach to getting everything just right. It actually tends to feel the opposite; slapdash. But I don't think he's lying. I think he's just that poor a writer. As an example, let's talk about that poem that took him "two days" to write:

From earth to sky, from leaves to roots

From fire to ice, and soul's own fruits

From light to dark, from wind to water

I claim this spirit and Creator's daughter

The the heart's blood boils or the bones be ash

Till the tallow be dust and death's teeth gnash

This one be mine

I cast her gnomon in a sunless glen

And pull this soul beyond its umbra's ken

Till her tasks be done and the worms be fed

Till the flesh be dust and the soul has fled

This one be mine

Cock's hen, spiders ten, bezoar then, I make a thrall stew

Ox gall, castor and caul, I made a chattel brew...

It took him two days to write...that. I could write a better poem in an hour, and one that probably would make more sense. If you're curious, this is a spell being cast that will place a person under the caster's power. That last part is especially funny to me. It has absolutely nothing to do with what's happening in this scene. She has no hen or ten spiders, or a bezoar, or anything else. She's not making any stews or brews, she's just reciting this rhyme and the spell is complete. I could go on and on about how silly this is, but I think I'll save it for a post about how Goodkind writes magic. But I will say that there was absolutely no reason for this poem to even exist, and yet Goodkind wasted two days of his life writing this drivel.

Overland Park, KS: How many more books will there be in the Sword Of Truth series?

Terry Goodkind: The answer to that is there will be one less than too many. Right now I have two more books under contract. As readers know, each one of my books is a complete novel, but the series has an overriding background story arc. When the series concludes, that background story arc will be complete.

This is laughable because Goodkind has declared the series to be over twice now, and has come back to write more. I'm serious. After 2007's Confessor, he declared the series to be concluded and that he would no longer be writing fantasy. He then published his first "non-fantasy" effort, The Law of Nines, which turned out to be...a secret continuation to Confessor. Then he quit pretending and came back to write still more books set in the world of Richard and Kahlan, most of them focusing on our Golden Couple. Then he announced the series finished, but started writing yet another series set in that world, focusing on one of the side characters. Lately he's started writing supernatural thrillers on the side, which I suppose is a form of branching out. But still, "one less than too many"? So what would be too many, as you've currently shot well past just about every other fantasy series on the planet with nineteen volumes, all of them at least 600 pages long?

Weymouth, MA: In your opinion who is the most must-read, cutting edge writer publishing today?

Terry Goodkind: Ayn Rand.

Who wants to be the one to tell Goodkind that Rand died in 1982?

Orem Utah: What do you think distinguishes your books from all of the other fantasy books out there, and why should readers choose to read your series? 

....Oooooooh, sh!t. Here we go.

Terry Goodkind: There are several things. First of all, I don't write fantasy. I write stories that have important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. It's either about magic or a world-building. I don't do either.

And in most fantasy magic is a mystical element. In my books fantasy is a metaphysical reality that behaves according to its own laws of identity.

Because most fantasy is about world-building and magic, a lot of it is plotless and has no story. My primary interest is in telling stories that are fun to read and make people think. That puts my books in a genre all their own.

So I guess readers who are interested in story rather than world-building and details of magic would have a good time reading my books.

And now we come to the meat of it. Give me a minute to choke down my rage.

Okay, now let's address his response as best we can, for now. This is, as far as I can tell, the first time Goodkind actively typed the words "I don't write fantasy". He would continue to make this claim numerous times over the following decade. You might ask "how the hell can Goodkind write a book full of magic, wizards, dragons and other monsters that takes place in a made-up world and yet think he's not writing fantasy?" As best I can tell, it boils down to a strawman Goodkind has set up concerning what other fantasy writers do versus what he does. Even though he clarifies that it's only "most" fantasy authors who do this, and not all, he also uses absolute statements to make it sound like he's the only author doing something else, namely, focusing on important human themes. This is, on its face, an utter falsehood.

Apparently most fantasy is about magic and world-building, and Goodkind "[doesn't] do either". Actually, he does both, just poorly. Most fantasy is "plotless and has no story". I've always enjoyed Goodkind's repeated redundancy here, where he used more words than necessary and said something he'd already said, and made the same point twice with different wording. (see what I did there?)

Remember, there is no such thing as a fantasy novel that is fun to read and makes you think. Unless you're reading Terry Goodkind. He made this statement in 2003. By 2003 we already had many volumes of cerebral, thinking-man's fantasy by the likes of Guy Gavriel Kay, KJ Parker and Gene Wolfe, among numerous others.

Trust me, I have an entire post coming up about Goodkind vs. "typical fantasy".

Haddonfield, NJ: Second Question - I've noticed similarities between your Sword of Truth series and Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series...(Black Sisterhood vs. Black Ajah; The Order vs. The Seanchan; Richard vs. Rand both discovering their powers, both have Nameless evil Gods...etc.) I've often voiced my suspicion that these two series might be occurring on the same world...how crazy am I?

Terry Goodkind: If you notice a similarity, then you probably aren't old enough to read my books.

Oh, you better believe there's a post coming about this. Before I get to it, let me say that, Terry, old boy, I'm 40 years old and was in my mid-twenties when I first read these books. I don't know how old you think one has to be before they can appreciate your brilliance and realize how different your works are from The Wheel of Time, but I can tell you that at 40 I still very much see the similarities. You, Terry Goodkind, are guilty of outright plagiarism.

Knoxville, TN: Do you ever look at reader responses to your books on forums such as Amazon.com, and do you ever take these reader opinions to heart?

Terry Goodkind: Never, to both questions. When I write, I'm telling myself a story. I don't think about if readers will like this or will they want to see this character or this situation. I'm writing to tell stories about important human beings and the philosophy behind the characters. I am first and foremost telling stories for myself. It's a huge amount of fun to do. The fact that readers get to read this story also is secondary.

Any writer who tries to write for readers instead of themselves is lost.

I included this to show that I'm trying to be as fair as I can here. I agree with this statement. Not about Goodkind's continued insistence that he's writing about important human characters and the philosophy behind them, but I think it would in fact be foolish for a writer to worry too much about reader concerns. This means running the risk of making readers angry, but all writing is a risk. Focusing too much on "are readers gonna like this" is why many rookie writers never get past their first few attempts.

That said, I'm almost positive that Goodkind does go on Amazon, and other places, to read reader reviews. He certainly did that on Goodreads. We'll get there.

Kansas City, KS: What made you choose to leave out other common races(dwarves, elves, etc) from your books?

Terry Goodkind: Please refer to the previous answer, in which I explain that I'm not writing fantasy ... My purpose is not weirdo cultural diversity. I repeat: I am writing stories about important human beings.

Sigh. We're right back into Goodkind's horsesh!t about not writing fantasy. Look, Goodkind, not all fantasy writers include elves and dwarves, or any other fantasy races. In fact, increasingly fewer do. And yes, this was already happening by 2003, and even well before. Robert Jordan and George RR Martin were already in full-swing popularity by then, and neither of them included elves or dwarves in their series. Others I could name who generally steer clear of elves and dwarves include Glen Cook, David Eddings, David Gemmell, Guy Gavriel Kay (with the sole exception of The Fionavar Tapestry), KJ Parker, Robin Hobb, Paul Kearney and Jack White, all of whom were already established fantasy authors well before Goodkind came on the scene.

I also cannot express enough contempt for the phrase "weirdo cultural diversity". I don't understand how a man who can talk endlessly about his important human themes can't understand how other authors have used fantasy races as allegories for real-world racial struggles.

Finally, Goodkind might not use elves or dwarves, but he does have non-human sentient races, including the Gars, the Mriswith and the...sigh...Andolians.

Pictuled: An Andolian, storen from Stal Tlek

And no, he didn't just copy Star Trek's Andorians, but the fact that I had to clarify that should say something

Raleigh, N.C: Are you currently developing another series?

Terry Goodkind: No. I devote myself totally to the next book I'm going to be writing. I only think about future projects in the most general of terms.

Goodkind only thinks about future books in the most general of terms, because he keeps introducing new plot elements that don't really work with what came before.

Phoenix, Arizona: What authors do you read yourself? 

Terry Goodkind: I think the most important author to read is Ayn Rand. Most of my reading is research for the things I'm writing about, but if I have any time to read, one of the people I like is Dean Koontz. I like his sense of life. He's one of the few writers around today, other than me, who seems interested in writing about heroic individuals who are worthy of being heroes. 

There's actually very little to read today because more and more books center around characters who are either unremarkable, pathetic or reprehensible. I don't like authors who choose to tell stories about these kinds of people. I like stories about individuals who can show the nobility of mankind.

So...just Ayn Rand and Dean Koontz. Goodkind's field of interest is astonishingly barren. It boggles my mind that any published author could suggest that there's so little to read that he can only think of two authors he enjoys, one of whom had been dead for over two decades at the time. Most authors like to appear well- and widely-read. Goodkind seems to be bragging on how little he reads.

Note also Goodkind's obsession with the idea of "heroes" and the idea of being "worthy".

Lexington, KY: Will there ever be an updated map to include the geography of more of the Old World? 

Terry Goodkind: No. The reason is that I consider the map a distraction to the story. The map was put in the book as one of the cliched fantasy elements that fantasy publishers require. In recent books I've been giving less and less emphasis to the map. 

When John Grisham, for example, has a character going from a restaurant to a courthouse, readers don't have to flip to the map to see where the restaurant and courthouse are. There's another reason why I don't expand the map, and that has to do with the very nature of what Richard is doing in the story. Richard, physically and metaphorically, is off the map in what is, for him, uncharted territory. He must use his mind to find his own way.

I expect readers to use their minds when they read the story, without the artificial aid of maps.

Gotcha, so any fantasy writer, apparently including JRR Tolkien, who includes maps are giving into cliche and don't expect readers to use their minds.

Goodkind fails to understand the difference between writers who tells stories in the real world and writers who tell stories in invented worlds. I don't need a writer of real-world fiction to tell me where England is and how to get there from the United States. On the other hand, if you're writing in a world that's entirely your own and you've got people traveling all over the damn place, a map is helpful to make sense of their journey. That said, an increasing number of fantasy authors don't use maps, and even back then guys like the aforementioned Glen Cook, Gene Wolfe and David Gemmell were not including them, and had been not including them since the 70's. The idea that it was required of him seems suspect, but I won't accuse him of outright lying here, as there might very well have been a requirement by TOR back then to include a map.

Also, Goodkind, the reason Grisham wouldn't give us a map between a restaurant and a courthouse is that no one draws that sort of map for a book. That's not a valid comparison. You should have used something more like Grisham drawing a map from Arkansas to Tennessee. The point would have held better, but it still remains that Grisham writes stories in our world, which we're already familiar with. You don't, or at least didn't in 2003.

I'm gonna skip ahead past a few questions because they're just kinda general, and Goodkind's answers are short, not to mention more or less the sort of thing any writer would answer, such as not knowing the exact date of the next book, or refusing to reveal plot elements of future books. There's no reason to get upset about any of that.

Grand Haven, Michigan: How much influence does politics and current affairs have on the story you're writing at the time?

Terry Goodkind: Philosophy is what has an influence on me. Current affairs and politics are driven by the same philosophy, therefore my stories always seem to be relevant to what's happening at the moment.

If you could take my stories back to any time in history and read them at that time, they would also seem relevant to what was happening now. The reason is because, as I said, the stories are about the way people think and about their philosophy. People's good or bad outlook on life remains constant.

A thief in the 18th century is the same as a thief in the 20th century is the same as a thief 1,000 years ago. A murder is a murder, regardless of the age in which it is committed.

Mostly I don't have a problem with what he says here. But the bolded section is hilarious to me, because Goodkind created a world for these characters to inhabit and they don't even seem relevant within that world and time period, let alone any other.

Phoenix, Arizona: At what age did you know you wanted to write and what course(s) in life did you take to see this thru? (schooling etc.)

Terry Goodkind: I've liked to tell myself stories ever since I was little. As long as I can remember, my most sacred ambition has been to write.

Because I have dyslexia, I had a hard time in school and a hard time with reading. As a result I didn't like school, didn't like English classes and didn't like reading. But I always liked telling myself stories.

I have no formal education whatsoever in writing. Grammar, for example, is something that I learned as a function of logic, because grammar's purpose is to make meaning clear. Although I don't know the names of the parts of speech, I obviously know how to write a sentence.

I think writers are born, not made. The first thing I actually wrote was "Wizard's First Rule," when I was 45 years old. You might say what you are reading when you read "Wizard's First Rule" is my education in writing.

Now, I don't wish to sound insensitive, but Goodkind has made an issue of his dyslexia before, and to be honest, I don't think he deserves to be handled with kid gloves, or that he is somehow more special because he was able to become an author despite that handicap. There are a lot of dyslexic authors out there, yours truly included. I know there are levels of severity, but while it is a challenge for a dyslexic person to learn to cope with their disability, it's hardly something that prevents one from being able to write. But I can understand how it would make school difficult, especially in the 50's and 60's when a lot of people didn't really understand it. Heck, even I got told I was "lazy" in Kindergarten because I "refuse[d] to draw an S", as my teacher put it (I kept drawing them backward).

Goodkind also seems to be bragging on his brilliance because he has no formal education in writing, as if there aren't countless published authors who never went to school to learn how to write. In fact, I would say there are more authors who were educated in other fields than writing than there are writers who studied creative writing or journalism or any other writing course in school. Goodkind is just one of them where it's pretty obvious he'd never written before. This is because most writers have umpteen abortive attempts as they hone their talents into skill, but Goodkind was apparently too good for that.

Finally, there's his assertion that writers are born, not made. F#ck you, Goodkind. That's 100% false. That implies that writers never have to learn anything, don't have to hone their craft or learn from their mistakes. It probably explains the universal opinion among his readers that each volume gets worse. That said, it's so strange to think that a 45-year-old could write something like Wizard's First Rule, which, as I've already said, seems to have been written by a person in their early 20's, or even teens.

Sterling, Virginia: Do you decide on the entire story line before you start writing, or does the story develop as it is written?

Terry Goodkind: A good novel consists of several elements: theme, plot and characterization. Plot is a logical progression of events. You can not tell a coherent, worthwhile story if you are wandering around aimlessly. When I start the process of writing down the story, I understand completely the theme, the plot and the characters.

When you do understand these elements, every passage of your novel, every sentence, will contribute meaningfully to those three elements. It's absolutely essential that one understands the plot before they begin the process of writing it down.

The actual typing out of the story is not the important or most difficult part, but the result of having carefully thought through the other elements I mentioned.

No, Terry. All fiction consists of theme, plot and characterization. This will come up again in later quotes.

Also, would you like to tell Prof. Tolkien that you cannot tell a coherent, worthwhile story if you don't plan ahead, or, as our fantastic douche likes to put it, are "wandering around aimlessly"? Tolkien didn't know where he was going when he first began writing The Lord of the Rings, which is today considered a seminal masterwork of any genre, that you would be lucky to even get a footnote in comparison to. It's also kinda funny that your stories, at least the earlier ones, do in fact feel aimless, like you're not planning ahead.

And does it seem like Goodkind can't seem to answer any question, even one as straight-forward as this one, without a lot of bloviated self-praise? How can Goodkind see his keyboard from that high horse?

green lane, pa: if you didnt start writing until age 45, what did you do beforehand?

Terry Goodkind: Primarily, I was an artist and sold paintings in galleries.

I've mentioned this already, and to be honest, I kinda wonder how much real-world experience Goodkind actually has. Has he ever worked in an office?

Sacramento, California: Female characters, love them. Whom you base them on or what?

Terry Goodkind: I start with a premise that females are human beings! All human beings are capable of reason, and it's to what degree they apply their mind to the problems they have. All of my characters are there specifically to help tell a story.

First of all, barf to the idea that Goodkind writes great female characters. Second, whaddaya know, females are human beings?! My eyes, they are open-ed.

Boston, MA: I realize this is a difficult question to answer in this format, but can you describe in general terms how you marketed and/or lobbied for "Wizard's First Rule"?

Terry Goodkind: I got the best agent in the country, and he did those things.

Comment from Terry Goodkind: The reason the best agent in the country wanted to represent me was because he knew that this book would sell itself. In fact, he was correct. Three publishers wanted it, and so my agent held an auction. Ten weeks after I wrote the end of "Wizard's First Rule," it sold to Tor books for a record price that still stands to this day.

Again, f#ck you. You had to market the book to the agent, or he never would have signed with you. I strongly doubt that "he knew the book would sell itself". I think a much more accurate way to say it is "he knew this was what was hot in the market at that time", which is true. Goodkind can't stop acting like his path to publishing is exemplary. And I've never seen any hard figures confirming that Wizard's First Rule sold for a "record price". Just Goodkind's word.

The rest of that interview is pretty low-key, and a bit repetitive. As you can see, by 2003 Terry thought very highly of himself, and I'm really gonna get into his claim that he doesn't write fantasy in a full post of its own.

A year following the USA Today chat, he did another with Prophets, Inc., his own fan group, that presumably has nowhere to meet anymore because he's deleted his message board. Back when he had one, you could see more signs of his ego making things hard for everyone, including that you could be banned for even mentioning that you liked other authors. His webmaster is a character worth his own post as well.

The PI chat is a natural progression of the arrogance and condescension on display at his USA Today chat. That is, it gets worse. A lot worse. So bad that I dread re-reading it. *deep breath* Alright, let's get this over with:

For starters, there's Goodkind's opening salvo, wherein he really lays it out how he sees himself and the world. We'll address it in sections, because otherwise I might be a sputtering ball of rage by the end of it.

I'm honored to be invited to this live chat. As always, I'm pleased to get a chance to answer many of the questions readers have.

Awww, that's almost nice.

Before we begin, I would like to clarify an important point that is often the source of confusion: I am a novelist; I am not, in the essential sense, a fantasy author.

It is the defining characteristic, upon which other characteristics depend, that properly distinguishes a thing's identity. This is called the rule of fundamentality.

To define me as a fantasy writer is to misunderstand the context of my books by misidentifying their fundamentals.

And we're off to the races! We already knew he didn't consider himself a fantasy author, but now we really see how weirdly he sees the world. Notice his name-dropping of the rule of "fundamentality", which my spell check doesn't even recognize as a word. It's apparently a tenant of objectivism, but Goodkind presents it here like it's a literary term, or universal truth, which it absolutely is not.

As others have pointed out, however, Goodkind can't understand a simple concept: perception is everything. Intent is nothing. No one apart from Goodkind and some hangers-on who wish to seem smart and earn his approval sees Goodkind's books as anything but what they are: fantasy novels. Even his fans think of him this way.

This is what I mean when I say that Goodkind doesn't even appreciate his fans, unless they're enjoying his books strictly in the way he wants them to enjoy them. If you're constantly having to tell your fans to stop looking at the fantasy aspects of your stories and focus on what you see as important, then it is you, Goodkind, who have misidentified their fundamentals.

But let's note something he starts off with; fantasy books are not novels! As he explains:

There are many kinds of books: thrillers, manuals, sagas, textbooks, poetry, geometry books, fantasies, memoirs, history, etiquette books, novels, etc. Books properly belong in specific categories because of their essential characteristics. An essential characteristic of a cookbook would be that it primarily contains recipes.

Okay, with you so far...

The essential attributes of a novel are: Theme, Plot, Characterization. These are not the essential attributes of a fantasy book.

WHAT??!! Please allow another big, fat "fuck you". No, I'm not censoring myself this time. Seriously, please die in a fire! What an asinine statement! Words simply fail me. But he's just getting started!

The essential attribute that dominates a fantasy is its mystical or magical aspects.

And the essential attribute that dominates your own novels are the mystical and magical elements.

A novel, dominated, driven and defined by mystical elements, can certainly be a fantasy. But a saga (a long detailed report), dominated by mystical elements, can be a fantasy as well. World building books are fantasies when driven by magic. Sagas (generally a subcategory of Naturalism) and world building books (which also usually fall under the broad category of Naturalism) can be fantasies, but they are not novels; they lack the requisite elements of Theme, Plot, and Characterization. 

I really don't wish to unpack this, but I have to. It's just so wrong on every level.

First, a "novel" is defined as "a fictitious prose narrative of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism." There's debates about what "book length" means, but no debate whatsoever that any fictitious prose narrative past a certain word count (usually 80,000 words minimally, as anything else would probably count as a novella or, below 10,000 words, a short story) is a novel. Novels have absolutely nothing to do with a focus on theme, plot or characterization. Those are three of the major building blocks that make up any novel, of any genre. They're not always done well, but they are always present in a novel.

Also, a "saga" is not a "long detailed report", nor is it a subcategory of naturalism. It is a long story of heroic achievement. That's it. Almost every story of the hero's journey can be considered a saga, and in fact a lot of fantasy series call themselves "sagas". He also invents a few mediums that exist only in his head, such as world-building books, by which I assume he means stories that are primarily focused on "subcreation" as Tolkien might call it.

In other words, Goodkind feels he can invent definitions for literary mediums that only exist in his own head. In so doing, he can lift himself above other authors in his genre. This is called "moving the goalposts".

(Naturalism is a school of art that denies the existence of volition, thereby dismissing the need for plot. Romanticism, the category of art to which my novels belong, is based on the principle of volition and all that entails.)

I don't know what to say to this other than what is Goodkind smoking?

A novel can certainly contain elements of fantasy, just as it can contain romance, adventure, political intrigue, and mystery, but containing elements of romance or fantasy does not make a book a romance or a fantasy if those elements are not the essential elements of the book -if they are not its defining characteristic.

Again with the "defining characteristic". The defining characteristic of a majority of John Grisham's novels is legal matters. Does that make them something other than novels? Are they just "law stories" now, or something? Tom Clancy writes military and espionage thrillers. Are his books "military stories" or "espionage stories" and not novels?

Again, though, perception is what counts here, and I firmly believe that to a majority of readers, the characteristic of Goodkind's books that they notice first is that it's a fantasy series. The only way Goodkind can deny that's what he's written is to start inventing these phony-baloney definitions.

Fantasy usually takes conventional values as a given. For example, the evil being battled is commonly a dark force that wishes to do evil- without any reason beyond that it is evil.

We've covered that. But again, he seems to think this is universal within the genre. It's not.

My books are novels that deal in important human themes involving the faculty of reason. I tell these stories through heroic characters.

This is pure chest-pounding, and not at all true. Sure, he can call his characters "heroic", as he seems to think of heroes as always being in the right by virtue of being the hero. But "faculty of reason?" Most of the time, Richard makes his decisions through anger while Kahlan whines and mopes.

The men who flew airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon had heroes. They did not believe that what they were doing was evil; they believed they were doing good. Why were they willing to die in order to kill indiscriminately? Why did they believe that what they were doing was good? What constituted evil in their minds? Who were their heroes?

This is a good question, and a level of nuance that is missing from Goodkind's books. I mean, it kinda sounds like he's comparing Richard and Kahlan to the 9/11 terrorists, which says a lot more than he wants to, but I don't think that's what he's doing, because in other statements it's clear that Goodkind himself saw them as terrorists, but he's acknowledging that this isn't how they saw themselves.

The problem is that in Goodkind's world, anyone who isn't Richard isn't allowed to think this way. Harold Amnell, Kahlan's half-brother, thinks the Confessors are evil because they mind-rape and steal husbands from families. For this, he is declared mad and sentenced to death. We're supposed to applaud this, and feel it's what Harold deserves. Goodkind isn't interested in exploring Harold's point of view and asking "could he be right?" because that would acknowledge that other points of view might be of equal validity to Richard's, and that can't be allowed. Similarly, Chandalen, a young tribal native who is introduced as someone who doesn't trust Richard, is initially treated by other characters as though he is stupid and worthless for not prostrating himself before Richard. The problem is, Chandalen's reasons for mistrusting Richard are 100% valid from any objective standpoint.

Why are my heroes different than the heroes of people like that? To answer those sorts of questions requires that I convey intellectual information.

As I said, he's not actually suggesting that Richard and Kahlan are akin to the 9/11 terrorists, but he is saying that only an intellectual like himself can understand the difference.

Those are the kinds of abstract concepts I write about which are absent from fantasy, as such. I have no desire to tell simplistic stories of good and evil driven by mysticism and magic. My novels instead, involve the nature of and projection of values.

Here he goes again. All fantasy, except what he's writing, are simplistic stories of good vs. evil, with the evil just being some dark evil force. Goodkind writes abstract concepts like a story about an evil wizard using magic MacGuffins to take over the world. Goodkind will later say that he doesn't read fantasy, and for the most part I agree. He has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to other fantasy.

My books were defined in the marketplace as fantasy purely because of business considerations, not essential characteristics. In the business of selling books, the fact that there are elements of magic in my novels and, far more importantly, that I am published by a fantasy publisher, nullifies every other consideration. 

No, your book was defined as fantasy because it's fantasy. At least he admits that it was also because he was published by a fantasy publisher, but he never stops to ask why that was. After all, if he really did get into a bidding war with two other publishing houses, why did he pick TOR? And what were the other publishing houses, by the way? We likely will never know, but I'm betting both were fantasy publishers, and the reason why I think this, and why it was TOR who ultimately published him, is because his "greatest agent in the world" recognized it as fantasy. Yet he gets none of the blame.

If I were now to write a book about a travel agent going on a whale-watching cruise and the boat was captured by Islamic terrorists who intended to use it to deliver a dirty bomb into Boston harbor, and this book were published by my present publisher, and I used my real name, the book would be racked in fantasy -despite its content.

Now this is just pure whining on his part, and he also fails to realize that it's gone the other way around as well. John Connelly, a writer mostly of detective fiction, has also published a couple of books of dark fantasy, or horror. Guess where they're racked? If Goodkind had started off writing the kind of novel he describes, and still managed to get published, he likely would have seen Wizard's First Rule racked alongside it in general fiction. Where you become famous is generally where you get racked, and it's not unfair, it's just a way for book stores to make sure your fans can find all your works without looking too hard. Stephen King, one of the most best-selling novelists in the entire world, gets racked exclusively in horror despite a large number of his books that can't be described as such. It's just what happens, Goodkind. Get over it.

Because fantasy publishers make their living publishing fantasy, they seek out fantasy that will sell to the fantasy reader, so there is rarely any confusion. Most fantasy authors are very deliberate in their intent to write fantasy books. In my case, I have ended up with a good publisher who happens to be a fantasy publisher, among other things but they failed to see beyond the fantasy elements in the first book. Look at WIZARD'S FIRST RULE. What did my publisher insist be on the cover? A red dragon. Was a red dragon, per se, central to the story? No. But in the minds of unthinking individuals the existence of a red dragon in the story superseded all other aspects and defined the book, therefore it went on the cover .

What Goodkind inadvertently fails to mention is that the dragon is absolutely in this story, and appears at a climactic moment. That's the moment that was chosen for the cover.

In all fairness, I don't think much of this cover, either. But for very different reasons.

It's by no means the worst cover imaginable. A lot of much better writers have gotten much worse covers. If anything, it's a better cover than the book deserves, as it's nowhere near that exciting. But look at all that whining Goodkind does about poor widdle him, the best-selling author who's living the dream. And this isn't all he has to say about the cover, either. Let me turn your attention to an interview from 2007, in which Goodkind goes even further about how little he thinks of this cover:

"I got Keith Parkinson because I was so disgusted, angry, and infuriated with the original cover of “Wizard's First Rule” that I almost quit writing for public consumption. I was livid. The cover on “Wizard's First Rule” did not represent in any way what I was writing about. It represented a juvenile, immature vision that reflected nothing about the book. It was complete deception by the publisher, trying to fool people into thinking that I was writing for adolescent males. I was absolutely livid, and I just about tore up my contract and said, "That's it, I'm not writing anymore books." My editor said, "If you don't like this, then who do you like?" I said, "Keith Parkinson."

Keith did the cover of “Stone of Tears”, but he couldn't do the cover of “Blood of the Fold”, so we were back to the idiotic covers. After that, Keith did all the covers. Throughout the series, my goal has been to steer the covers away from traditional fantasy covers because I'm not writing fantasy. I'm accidentally published by a fantasy publisher so I get thrown in with that genre, but my books are no more fantasy than a detective novel is a "gun book." What makes me nuts about the fantasy genre is that, unlike any other genre, people become obsessed and focused on irrelevant things. For example, in a detective novel, if a detective has a Snub Nose 38, no one asks him questions like "Can we know more about the Snub Nose 38?" or "Have you ever thought of doing some kind of special story just about the Snub Nose 38?" It's a distraction.

The cover of fantasy art tends to illustrate those themes of those authors who are writing those kinds of books. I'm not one of them, and I don't want to be seen as one of them. From the beginning, my goal has been to steer the cover art away from those representational images. Keith became a really good friend, and he would do covers before I even wrote the books. I was describing to him what a cover needed to look like, and then as an artist, I could convey to him very accurately what I wanted him to paint. He and I got along very well and had a great time designing covers. My goal was to pull out of Keith something more noble than the typical red dragon.

For example, with “Faith of the Fallen”, I need you to paint a painting that illustrated the nobility of the human spirit. He said, "Oh, gee, don't give me anything too hard, Terry!" [laughs] My goal has always been to write above that kind of representational art. Even with covers like “Temple of the Winds” where you see a guy [on the cover] holding a sword; that, to me, is a really cool piece of art, I love it—but as a cover, I don't like it, because it turns off vast amounts of readers. You automatically disqualify the book for consideration by much of the public. And these are people who love these types of books, but the art doesn't convey to them that they like it.

I've gotten most of my readers by word of mouth. My typical reader, probably 80-90 percent of my readers, don't read fantasy. I'm the only "fantasy" author they read, otherwise for them it's general fiction. They recognize that the books aren't fantasy books, they're books about people, they're character-driven. My goal has always been to change the cover art in a way that represents the spirit of what the book is about. With Chainfire, Phantom, and Confessor, those are the first books that are truly my vision of what I want the covers to be. I've finally achieved the kind of covers that I want, that give you a hint of the mystery, romance, intrigue, and even a little bit of the fantasy elements in the book, but at the same time, it illustrates how the books are meant for all people, for all people who just like stories.

After “Temple of the Winds”, I got contractual cover control. Keith and I designed the Chainfire template of how those [three] books look. When you see Chainfire, Phantom, and Confessor, you're seeing my pure vision, unadulterated by what anyone else thinks it should be. Keith and I designed everything down to the smallest detail."

At the moment I run the risk of going off on a long tangent, so I'm just gonna say I'll examine this quote, offer more observations about covers, and whether or not Goodkind really is a fantasy writer, in greater detail later.

So, my books were categorized according to one of the least important elements of their content - red dragons -at the expense of the most important element - human themes shared by every one of you.

Such as? I really don't know what universal themes we should all be recognizing in The Sword of Truth. For the most part, I find Goodkind's view of reality very skewed, and merely parroting Ayn Rand does not mean one is imparting important human themes.

I've finally succeeded in getting Tor to put a new cover on WIZARD'S FIRST RULE. What is the subject of the new cover? Two people. Are they central to the story? Yes. Is magic central to their story? No. What is? Volition. How is volition carried out? Through the thinking human mind of the characters as demonstrated by the plot Theme, Characterization, Plot. A novel.

I'll admit I like the second cover better. That being said, nothing on the cover speaks to anything about the characters. And again, a novel is a novel whatever genre it's in.

Along with cover content, I've endeavored to mitigate confusion and misconception by having the imprint used on my books changed from the one that says "fantasy" to the generic "TOR" logo and by removing some of the more overt fantasy trappings, such as the sword on the title page. You will also observe that the series name -The Sword of Truth -is no longer used on the books' covers. But, because of marketplace realities, there are limits to what I can do to get this message across.

Oh, good lord. Terry, you named this series The Sword of Truth. It was you, not your publisher, that gave your lead character a sword, and that included a dragon in the story. You that chose to set your series in a fantasy world. You can talk about mitigating confusion all you want, but the confusion does not stem from TOR's covers. It stems from you insisting that your fantasy novels are not fantasy novels.

Yet there are those who rail at me because I don't behave like a fantasy author is "supposed" to. I don't follow the rules, as they see it.

You insist they stop seeing your work the way they see it. You tell them to stop having fun and see the work as some kind of transformative work of art, like you do. It's not enough for you that they simply enjoy it. They have to enjoy it the right way. It's not that you don't behave like a fantasy author is supposed to. It's that you insist your readers behave in the way you hoped they would.

There are those who focus exclusively on this least important element -magic - simply because people I don't know, despite my strenuous objections at the time, insisted on placing a red dragon on the cover of my work, and because of that, and who published the book, I was racked in bookstores as fantasy. As a result, in the minds of some readers I am for all time to be labeled as a “fantasy" author. So I must now follow some unstated laws of writing - I must know my place - because I've been mindlessly labeled a "fantasy" author? That, my friends, is bigotry.

Again, you wrote a story with a dragon in it. You signed with a publishing house known for fantasy.

I am not an obedient subservient cog of a group, slavishly following the group's conventions. I am a thinking individual acting of my own free will.

Nope. You're a dick, acting like a dick. That's why you've gotten backlash.

Shania Twain had a similar problem with country music fans who resented her because her music doesn't follow the constrained conventions of country music. She has risen above category names. For most of my fans, so have I.

Most of Shania Twain's fans are not regular country music fans. Most of my fans are not regular fantasy fans nor are they so bigoted that they think I must know my place and stay in it.

For the most part, I don't know what he's talking about. I have never heard Shania Twain diss her fans and suggest that people are wrongly labeling her a country singer. She was a breakout success for her musical genre, that's true, but primarily it was because she was hot and sexy and not afraid to capitalize on that. But her primary fans have always been fans of country music, and it wasn't like she was continually telling people "stop calling me a country singer! I'm more than just a country singer!"

While my books do contain elements of fantasy, and I'm proud of those elements - just as I'm proud of the romance, the political intrigue, the mystery -those fantasy elements are not the essential characteristics that define my work.

BS. You're not proud of them or you wouldn't have made so much fuss about being labeled a fantasy author.

A proper novel, with a true plot, must have ideas that drive the story. 

Sure, but this is the case with a majority of fantasy novels. The question is simply how well it succeeds.

Action without psychological articulation is not a worthwhile plot. Those essential elements that make my books novels (and not the fantasy elements) are the fundamentals that are most important to me, So please keep in mind that, while I will be happy to entertain questions that pertain to the fantasy elements, those things just aren't central. Magic is but a tool I use to help tell important human stories. The magic isn't what matters -the characters do.

In other words, he even has to tell his fans to see his works another way than how they initially saw them. Good authors don't have to do this. Shania Twain got fans outside of country music because she had an element that made people who didn't usually like country appreciate her. That doesn't mean she's not still a country singer. And plenty of fantasy authors have elements that make people like them who usually don't read fantasy. But that doesn't mean they're not fantasy authors.

You might say that the magic is like a light used to illuminate someone skulking around in the dark. When people focus intently on the magic elements, it's as if, when I shine that light on the man lurking in the darkness, they are asking me, "Say, what kind of batteries do you have in that flashlight -are they disposable or are they the rechargeable kind? One time you said it took a fraction of second for the flashlight to turn on. Now you seem to be implying that it turned on instantly. I’m confused, which is it -a fraction of a second, or do you really mean instantly? Hey, let me ask you a question about voltage. .." They only want to know about my flashlight. I want to know what the man is doing mucking about in the darkness.

And this is unadulterated bullshit. If you've written a good fantasy novel with an intriguing story and engaging characters, especially if magic isn't really a driving element to your story, fantasy readers for the most part aren't going to be demanding you stop and explain your magic system. I sincerely doubt readers of Cook, Wolfe, Kay or Martin are truly concerned about the writer explaining their magic systems.

Admittedly, some writers do pause and explain their magic systems to their readers in-story. David Farland does it, as does Brandon Sanderson, but the problem is that Goodkind does it, too. He repeatedly has Zedd or Kahlan or one of the other magic users explain magic in great detail to Richard. If Goodkind had simply deigned to keep his magic mysterious and rarely used, he likely wouldn't have half the questions he's had about it. As it is, he has it practically on every page, and has explained it often, but never consistently.

That's one of Goodkind's biggest downfalls; he's not consistent. His world is inconsistent, his characters are inconsistent, his tone is inconsistent, his plots are inconsistent and his magic is inconsistent.

Also, again, we know what flashlights are. We know how they work. We don't need it explained to us. If you're gonna make magic a major part of your story (and contrary to everything he says here, it is), then you need to know how it works and convince the reader that you do. Even if it's not explained, at least it will feel consistent.

Man, all that and we haven't even gotten to the worst parts of this chat! Now, I will admit that the first several questions are kinda normal, and so are their answers. But then this question is asked:

Question: Lately I've found myself in many arguments defending your books against 'fans' who say they used to like your books but no longer do to the extent that they used to. Would you mind settling some debates by answering the Question: What, if anything do you have to say to the people that voice the opinion that you're latest four books haven't been as good as the previous four and call them "too preachy"?

Buckle up.

Answer: Don't be fooled. The assertion made by these detractors is a note wrapped around a brick thrown through the window. These people are not fans. There are hundreds if not thousands of fantasy books that fulfill their professed taste in books. Why would they continue to read books they claim are bad? Because they hate that my novels exists. Values arouse hatred in these people. Their goal is not to enjoy life, but to destroy that which is good -much like a school child who does not wish to study for a test and instead beats up a classmate who does well. These people hate what is good because it is good. Their lives are limited to loathing and indifference. It isn't that they want to read a good book, what they want is to make sure that you do not. Ignore them.

Got that? If we, like many of Goodkind's readers, feel that the quality of his books has declined, we were never fans at all and we "hate that his books exist" because "values arouse hatred" in us. Our lives are limited to "loathing and indifference".

There is so much wrong with this quote that once again I'm not sure where to start. I guess what I'll say for now (I'll have more to say in future posts) is that Goodkind apparently believes that it is impossible to hate his books on a pure quality level. What stopped me from reading wasn't the values being presented (though I now recognize that they are repugnant). Goodkind's lack of consistency, repetitiveness, general poor writing and characters I had stopped caring about did that.

I'll give him this, though. I do hate that his books exist. I do want you to not read them (or if you must, pick them up at second hand stores, where there are always lots of copies). But not for the reasons Goodkind suggests.

Question: Terry, when you wrote FotF, and the conversion / transformation of Nicci, her search for the answer to the riddle of Richard. I was reminded of the story of the conversion Saul of Tarsus. (Sp) Saul went around killing and torturing Christians for their beliefs; Nicci went around killing and torturing people who wanted to life their lives. I was wondering if there was any conscious thought on your part regarding these two.

Answer: I’ve never heard of Saul of Tarsus before. 


The rest of his answer is immaterial. I just wanted to point out that Goodkind has apparently not only never read the Bible, but apparently has never even heard of one of its most prominent figures. I know that Goodkind is an atheist, and that's not the issue. The issue is that most people who consider themselves literate at least know the basics of the Bible.

Question: Richard has believed that the Midlands must work together in order to defeat the Imperial Order. However, it seems as if many of the times he has fought the Order himself or helped other societies to do so, it has always been in his own self interest. For instance, he helped the Bandakaran people because if he didn't, he would die. He made Jennsen see the truth because otherwise, Kahlan would be killed. My question is how come Richard isn't acting like a leader?

PS Your books are amazing... keep em coming!

Answer: How come Richard isn't acting like a leader? Let me get this straight. To you, being a leader means that, one must sacrifice one's self? Self-interest, has no place in the decisions a man makes? You think, then, that a man who surrenders himself into the chains of slavery is a proper leader? This is who you would want to lead you? A volunteer slave? There's a comforting thought on the eve of battle.

I include this to show how twisted Goodkind's worldview is. Apparently being willing to sacrifice one's self is "chains of slavery". Okay.

QUESTION: BenIII: Does Mystar really know you? And did he really help you with your office. Not to sound disrespectful, but a few of us were wondering.

Answer: Yes, Mystar is a friend of mine (as is Zedd). Yes I saw him when I had just moved. He helped me put my office together so I could swiftly get back to work on NE. While we share many of the same views and think alike in a number of areas, he (rightfully) does not presume to speak for me. There are some areas where we don’t agree at all and don’t hold the same views. If I ever get the time I will straighten him out. (humor) Occasionally he calls (as does Zedd) to ask how I wish something to be answered or what I would like to say about a particular issue. There are times, because of our conversations on a topic, when he so clearly understands my views that he will go ahead and tell people how he knows I would answer. Mystar is scrupulously honest. If he tells you something, you can take it to the bank. Honesty, as you can tell from my novels, is something that is important to me.

I'm including this because holy hell will I have more to say about Mystar. Apparently he and Zedd (the moderator of Prophets, Inc.) are separate people, but I'm not sure if that's actually true, just that Goodkind wanted us to believe that. Remember what he says about Mystar being "scrupulously honest". It'll hurt later.

Question: Mr. Goodkind, in a recent interview you professed your dislike for most of the world siding with Sadaam Hussein, and saying that it was wrong to stop him.

Although wouldn't you say that your 8th Rule, Deserve Victory, gives credibility to those who protested against the U.S.'s involvement in the liberation of the Iraqi people? Just as Richard told the Bandakar that he would not liberate them, they had to liberate themselves. Wouldn't you say this also applies to the Iraqi, who just sat back waited for higher powers to save them, or do you think it's a different situation?

Answer: This is not a valid application of the Eighth Rule. Think of the Eighth rule in this way: would you rather get an" A" on a test because you studied hard, or because you cheated?It doesn't apply to the people of Iraq. In the early 90s we told the Iraqi people that if they rose up to win their freedom, we would back them. We lied. As a result, hundreds of thousands of them were slaughtered. I doubt that any of us can really imagine what it's like to live in a place where if you are even suspected of speaking ill of the leaders then your children will be tortured before your eyes before they and the rest of your family are butchered.The rest of the world did not merely side with Sadaam Hussein. The people in countries such as France and Germany overwhelmingly stated in opinion polls that they hoped American's would be defeated (killed) and that Sadaam Hussein would be victorious over the US-led effort to free the Iraqi people- that Sadaam would continue to rule. This means, to continue to torture and slaughter his own people by the thousands. The people of the countries who were against us are free to go to their cemeteries and look at the rows upon rows of graves of Americans who died helping to defeat murderous dictators in those lands, and yet they do not grasp what they are seeing. We took no land from them except enough to bury our dead. They stand there, free of fear of torture and death, without comprehending or appreciating the price paid by others to defeat such evil. Please refer to page 425 of NAKED EMPIRE.

I include this mainly to illustrate Goodkind's warped view of the world. I don't recall countries such as France or Germany openly siding with Hussein. They just wished for an alternate solution to open war.

Question: Reading through this series I've noticed that you take the time to name many characters, even ones who only appear very briefly. I've also noticed certain characters who are mentioned several times, such as Richard's mother and Kahlan's mother seem to be deliberately not named (repeatedly called simply Richard's mom, Zedd's daughter, etc, instead of being named). I've noticed you put a lot of thought into naming your characters

Answer: Thank you for noticing that I put a lot of thought into my characters' names. Yes, you are correct in assuming that there is a purpose for my not naming certain characters.

Oh, geez. If I didn't know better I'd swear he planted this question. The sheer arrogance of acting like he's the only author out there who names incidental or minor characters is staggering. And how this person fawns over Goodkind putting "a lot of thought" into characters' names. How obsequious and dishonest. I've already talked about Goodkind's dumb names, and I need not remind you that he named his villain "Darken Rahl".

Question: I was at one of your book signings in Dayton, Ohio. You said that these books are not meant to be read by children, but by adults. I don't understand why your books are not meant for children. I'm only 14 and I love your books. Your books are the only books I read, mainly because of the relationship between Richard and Kahlan. And partly because the way you use magic in your books. Your writing I can understand. So my question is why are your books meant for adults and not children?

Answer: This is an excellent question and I'm glad you asked it. My novels are based on stories that most anyone could appreciate. Young people, while they may not be able to articulate the reasoning behind certain events, can nevertheless appreciate the sense of life presented. There is plenty there for someone your age to read and enjoy. I've heard from 14 year-old readers, like you who in fact have a better grasp of the story than do people in their twenties.But there are still concepts involved that are beyond the complete understanding of young people. Think of how much more you understand than you did only a couple of years ago. Young people are still putting together the meaning of ever more abstract concepts. While you can certainly begin to grasp the meaning and implications of love between a couple such as Kahlan and Richard, you are simply not old enough to completely understand such a relationship.The magic that you enjoy reading about is fun in and of itself, but there are deeper meanings behind it. I use magic metaphorically -meaning that it's used to represent other things in our world. On the most simplistic level, magic is used as a metaphor for technology. The journey books used by the Sisters of the Light, for example, are metaphorically much like e-mail or other forms of communication. It's not the magic itself that's important, but what is done with it -it's the message sent that matters, not the means, just like when you get an important message. The older you get, the more you will come to understand the meanings behind the things in the books. Think of it this way: Imagine a seven-year-old listening to the audio of one of my books. They would be able to grasp the story, but do you really think that they would get everything that you, at fourteen, would understand? In the same way, as you get older you will come to understand more of the meaning involved in the stories.I've had people come up to me at book signings and tell me that they first read WIZARD'S FIRST RULE at fourteen, and then they re-read it when they were twenty and they could hardly believe how much they had missed when they were younger.This doesn't mean that they weren't smart enough, or that they didn't enjoy it the first time, it only means that it's natural to understand more about life as you get older.For this reason I say that the books are meant for adults, but that doesn't mean that younger people can’t also enjoy the story, and I've very pleased that you did.I think that, in some ways, young people are better able to grasp the goodness in the main characters. It seems that some adults miss this aspect of the stories because they become so tangled in irrelevant details. In this respect, it could be that you got more from the stories than many adults.

I like the part about how even though they're not for children, children sometimes understand his books better than adults. Yeah, because despite the adult content and the size of the books themselves, they're written on a very immature level.

This next one though...we've truly reached the piece de resistance.

QUESTION: Annerinas: Will you, Mr. TG, actually ever go write a non-fiction book exploring fully your ideals and philosophy, getting it out of your system. So that it's not being presented in the next book at the expense of the actual story?

Translation: Will you please change that way you think and write, stop using your mind, stop being an individual and instead start writing books like every other hackneyed Tolkien clone on the fantasy shelves. Answer: NO

The Premise of this question and all that it entails is beneath contempt. To say that I view this notion with indignity hardly begins to cover it. What you are seeing with my novels is something unique. They are not like all the other fantasy books. A tiny group of fantasy fans happens to like things the way they are and only wants more of the same. These few do not under any circumstances; want anything to change or anything that requires thought. They want everything to stay static and simplistic. For these reasons (and others), these people do not like what I write and they never will. They even hate that my books exist, that I write things that dare to uplift and inspire.

Rather than simply reading and enjoying the many books available that they like, they spend their time railing against the one author who is different.

What I have done with my work has irrevocably changed the face of fantasy. In so doing I've raised the standards. I have not only injected thought into a tired empty genre, but, more importantly, I've transcended it showing what more it can be-and is so doing spread my readership to completely new groups who don’t like and wont ready typical fantasy. Agents and editors are screaming for more books like mine.

They can’t find any-for 3 reasons. One, copying innovation is an impossibility. Two, individually cannot be copied. They don’t grasp the essence of my work. What they end up with are authors who imitate some of the nonessential elements unique to my books, believing they must be the secret to success, much as my publishers at first believe that it was the red dragon that defined my work.

Why are editors trying to get more books like mine? Because any one of my backlist sells more copies in a month than most fantasy authors' books sell in their entire run. NAKED EMPIRE has been on the NY Times list for two months now. Far more importantly, I break genre lines and draw my ever growing sales from the much larger pool of general fiction readers who embrace my books

Typical fantasies saturate the core fantasy readers and can't grow beyond. Only a few have, like Tolkien which is why every fantasy book blurts out "The Next Tolkien!" It's a lie that only fantasy readers believe or care about. My novels are best sellers in over twenty countries, including countries like Japan where fantasy just doesn’t sell. In Australia alone, the sales of NAKED EMPIRE more than doubled over the previous book, a best seller itself.

An advertising campaign in England and Australia that appealed to general fiction readers, rather than strictly fantasy readers, along with enthusiastic word of mouth about the novel, are responsible. My true fans have chosen to think, to embrace all that life is.

They like that my books inspire them, uplift the, help them see the joy in life. Just today I received a letter that eloquently expressed a common sentiment:"I learned from the underlying messages in your books and even the messages that smacked me in the face.

I have been able to apply them to my life and they helped me a great deal. Rather strange, huh? Learning life lessons from a "fantasy book"? But then again, they are more than just "fantasy books." Mr. Goodkind, you write of beauty and majesty, and in the long run that gives me hope. So I guess the reason I'm writing you for the hope and to thank you for a message that breeds life, love,

and understanding. Thank you from the depths of my heart. Thank you for something so pure."(---Lizz from NY) 

So, in essence, this question is asking me to give up bringing meaning to people's lives, give up what I love, give up using my mind, give up my success, give up my huge fan base, and give up being a singular author of unique books, and, instead, write books I don’t enjoy, becoming one of the faceless many who are all doing basically the same thing for a small group of fantasy fans who don't want anything original.

Are you beginning to grasp why this isn't ever going to happen?

A resounding "fuck you", douchebag.

Here we have it, folks, the quote heard 'round the world.

So much of my hate for this man and everything he does stems from this quote right here.

I'll have a good deal more to say about this quote when I talk about Goodkind as a fantasy writer, and about his sales claims when I do a post on his status as a best-selling author. But the funniest aspect of this (aside from the fact that "Copying innovation is an impossibility" and "Individuality cannot be copied" are essentially the same point) is that here, Goodkind seems to be suggesting that he really is a fantasy writer (and on some level, I'm sure that he has always known that he is) but he finally takes the gloves off, and no longer uses weasel words like "most" and "a lot of" when referring to other fantasy books and the writers who write them. Here he says it openly: fantasy is a "tired, empty" genre. His books are not like "all" the other fantasy books. He is the "one author who is different".

The response Goodkind has received to his more grandiose claims, including this one, is Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is crap". When Goodkind says "most fantasy authors" or "a lot of other fantasy", he might be giving people the wrong impression about what the best-loved fantasy books are like, but he's not 100% wrong because the whole of fantasy includes the hacks as well as the good authors, and in any genre, hacks outnumber the good. Here, however, he just lays it out; fantasy, as a genre, is worthless. The idea of learning life lessons from a fantasy book is laughable.

You heard him, folks. Put down your Pratchett, your Rowling, your Brust, your McCaffrey, your LeGuin, your Zelazny, your Donaldson, your Williams, your Hobb, your Gemmell, your Gentle, and that's to say nothing of your Tolkien, your Lewis, your Kay, your Cook, your Wolfe or your Martin (all of whom had published their greatest works by the time this interview was conducted). All of them are simplistic trash from which you will learn nothing. Read Goodkind, and be challenged! Learn important life lessons like why anyone who disagrees with you deserves death!

I can't find the direct quote (though in this very chat he reveals he doesn't read much fiction at all) but Goodkind has declared multiple times that he does not read fantasy, never has and never wants to. So the question is, how can he know all that about it? I have some theories on that, which I will get to in due course.

Then there is his use of the term "true fans". I can't imagine another author differentiating between their fans and their "true fans". I guess the millions of Goodkind's readers who like his stuff because they love the fantasy elements aren't "true" fans. Thus they don't count, despite the fact that Goodkind would not sell nearly so well without them.

We're really gonna expound a bit on Goodkind as a fantasy reader and writer, his proper genre, his place within the one he truly belongs in, and his works compared to others (including his blatant plagiarism of others). But first I wanted to collect some of his worst statements all in one place.

Enjoy?