Most Helpful Customer Reviews
267 of 298 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
The Sword of Truth isn't so sharp anymore, February 12, 2004
This review is from: Naked Empire (Sword of Truth, Book 8) (Hardcover)
Since the fifth book of Mr. Goodkind's venerable Sword of Truth series, Soul of the Fire, a growing number of people have begun to complain that the books have grown too "preachy" to be enjoyable, while series loyalists and Mr. Goodkind himself insist that no such thing is occurring. Since this is the topic that invariably arises when one discussed these books, I feel that this is the primary issue I must address in this review. I recently read an interview with Mr. Goodkind in which he discussed his writing process, his views on philosophy, and how he incorporates them into his work, among other things. In it, he made a number of comments that struck me as telling indicators of what you'll find in Naked Empire. 1. Mr. Goodkind stated that rather than tell a pre-conceived story as he believes it would unfold, he instead comes up with a moral or philosophical statement he'd like to make, and then crafts the story to fit that tenet. Goodkind is not a world-builder and never has been; the endings of his books have always had the ring of, "Nice work Richard... but our princess is in another castle!" to paraphrase from everyone's favorite plumber-based video game. I've never had a problem with this in the past, since what Goodkind lacks in a cohesive world and story, he makes up for with his wonderful characters. However, his statement in the interview confirms what many readers have been saying over the past few volumes: his books are increasingly becoming vehicles for Goodkind's philosophy, and Naked Empire shows that trend increasing exponentially. While the events put forth as the book's main conflict could be intriguing, as the story develop, they seem much more like a setting explicitly constructed to make a tired moral point than one crafted to advance his story. 2. One of the main influences for Mr. Goodkind's portrayal of the Bandakar people was the idea put forth by Immanuel Kant that our senses are insufficient to perceive reality as it truly is. The Bandakar are a people who have been sealed away from the rest of the world since the time of the great wizards' war, whose homeland is now exposed to the rest of the world for reasons that will be made clear in the middle of the book. The Bandakar have some impossibly naïve views on reality and pacifism, and the fact that Goodkind cites Kant as the forebear of these ideals shows how grossly he misinterpreted what Kant was trying to say. I am as much a proponent of personal responsibility as anyone else, but unfortunately, this book is nothing more than a huge strawman argument. Goodkind sets up a pitiful target that nobody in the real world would defend, and expects us to be awed when Richard knocks it down with the force of reason. The result is not impressive; it's irritating in the extreme. 3. Mr. Goodkind calls Ayn Rand the "greatest philosopher since Aristotle." I'm not even going to touch that, but it should give you a strong idea of what you're in for. About three quarters of the way through this book, I realized something astonishing. I don't like Richard anymore. He was such a wonderful character in the early days of this series, but now he doesn't even seen human. Rather than a compassionate and resourceful man who's overcome many hardships, he comes across as a tiresome ersatz intellectual, and not just when he's addressing the Bandakar. His words are saturated with pedantry even when he's talking to his friends. The book's ending marks another low point in the series. There are three primary problems that Richard must overcome, which I won't name for fear of revealing too much of the story, but while Goodkind prides himself on writing endings that show his characters prevailing through intelligence and resourcefulness, only one of the solutions satisfies in that regard. Of the two disappointments, one is a contrived anticlimax, and the other is a horrible deus ex machina. That said, the upside is that there are still several strong characters here. Zedd, Adie, Nathan, and Ann all have parts to play, and they are still my favorite characters. I still love every minute I get to spend with them. Jagang is as interesting as usual, and Mr. Goodkind gets bonus points for Nicholas the Slide, who is one of the creepiest villains I've read in quite some time. So, the final verdict: Would I recommend this? Maybe. If you're a very dedicated Sword of Truth fan, I think you might want to stay with it if only for the good times spent with the characters not traveling with Richard. Will I give up on the Sword of Truth? Probably not. As much as Richard irritates me now, I still love the other characters, and I haven't given up hope on the series yet. Please, Mr. Goodkind, turn this thing around.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
141 of 162 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Has Goodkind Lost the Plot?, August 13, 2003
This review is from: Naked Empire (Sword of Truth, Book 8) (Hardcover)
It pains me to review Naked Empire, the 8th book in the Sword of Truth series, since I am an avid fan both of Goodkind and the adorable central characters he created in Wizard's First Rule, Richard and Kahlan. Firstly, fantasy fans beware. This book is not packed with the usual action and world buidling of fantasy sagas. Now, Goodkind was never one to conform to the rules of typical fantasy books, but this book is a rule all onto itself. More than two thirds of it consists of tedious preaching on behalf of Richard to less enlightened souls about the value of life ... and consequently the justification for murder! Not only do I have trouble swallowing the mind-numbingly tripe "philosophies" of Richard, I find his conclusions incredulous. I would have been able to forgive dubious values and even a speech or two by Richard if the plot were more forgiving. Unfortunately, and it is highly unfortunate, it seems like Goodkind has lost the plot. Where is the action? The plot is so thin that it can be related in two short sentences: Richard converts a bunch of non-magical misfits to his beliefs by saving them from evil occupation. And, oh yeah, he also finds out how to control his gift. There you go. Harldy an effort worthy of Goodkind. And my question to Goodkind is: do YOU deserve victory? The plots and characters just aren't explored. Nicholas the Slide is too obvious - you know from the start that Betsy the goat is going to be a pain in the behind (literally), and Jenssen, Richard's half sister, is frankly too annoying. Goodkind spends the first 150 pages bringing readers up to speed on the plot thus far. This should tell you something of the value of Naked Empire as a book in its own right ... Life is too valuable to spend time reading this book. The read was painful, my review is painful. I'm sure that Goodkind is feeling the pain too. By no means deserving of victory (nor my money).
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
94 of 107 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
An Absolutely Dreadful Book, December 4, 2003
By A Customer
This review is from: Naked Empire (Sword of Truth, Book 8) (Hardcover)
Goodkind is all for "moral clarity," so I have to put this bluntly. The book is terrible. The plot is advanced perhaps a millimeter in hundreds of pages. Why, you ask? So that we may have the great fortune of listening to Mr. Goodkind rant his sub-Ayn Randian Objectivism for page after page. The ideas espoused are spoken with the conviction a Hitler youth--just as naively self-assured, just as accepting (embracing) of violence. I am all for individual responsibility, freedom, etc., but to have them preached to me page after page in such a clumsy and didactic fashion (your childhood Sunday School teacher was more elegant and eloquent than Richard's speeches on the subjects) almost made me convert to the Skinnerian behaviorism of Walden Two. In fact, if it weren't for the disturbing and discordant brutality of Richard and his enemies, I would say that this was intended as a social indoctrination for children, like those contrived Victorian-era morality tales. He truly could not have had an adult audience in mind, could he? The story--if you want to call it that--involved Richard being poisoned, finding a group of people that lack "moral clarity" (read "peaceniks" or "hippies" here--two groups that the author obviously loathes) and searching for the antidote. During this time he suffers nausea and headaches. Nothing could be less interesting than hearing repeatedly about a character suffering nausea and headaches, and I wish someone would have pointed this seemingly obvious fact out before the book was published. Richard's wife, Kahlan, again plays the fool and gets herself captured. There is a new evil wizard (boo! hiss!) that can steal the souls of the people he impales on sticks. He then uses these souls somehow to control large black birds and goats (though why he does not simply put his own spirit into them without placing people onto sticks is not made known to us, and I doubt Mr. Goodkind knows either). There is a girl that has no magic that keeps company with a goat. Not only does she have no magic, she has no character, and has nothing to do with the story. The goat, being a goat, should probably not be a main character in a novel, but this is a decision left to Mr. Goodkind. At times the writing makes you want to laugh out loud. When the evil wizard has placed people on sticks so that he can fly in big birds, the dialogue becomes exactly what you read in "Fun with Dick and Jane." "Look, look. See, see. It is good to go up. It is fun to go down." I know you think I exaggerate, but you can verify this for yourself if you wish. The arguments for the capitalist and objectivist philosophy are not fun to read. They ramble on and on, and the points they make are trivial at best. The characters act, conveniently, only in ways that bolster the arguments. In fact, they are not really human characters at all; they are pieces of cardboard, cut out and smeared clumsily with black or white finger paints. The good people are wholly good--perfect and sainted. The evil people are absolutely and totally evil--they have no redeeming merits and hate even their own mommies. In short, they are all contrivances. The outcome is a forgone conclusion. I could not ruin it for you because it is too obvious. I cannot say that it was satisfying. Nothing about this puerile work really was. I know that sounds harsh. But as a new convert to the righteous Mr. Goodkind's vision of "moral clarity", I have to call it what it is.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
