Customer Reviews

Naked Empire - The Sword Of Truth, Book 8

5 star:		(60)
4 star:		(69)
3 star:		(51)
2 star:		(87)
1 star:		(118)

 

 

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.

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).

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.

One thought kept running through my mind as I read NAKED EMPIRE, At least I didn't spend my own money on this tripe!

NAKED EMPIRE is another monument to that unfortunately expanding society of authors that never seemed to learn the third important part to any story, the ending. I mean lets get real here! Yes I absolutely loved WIZARD'S FIRST RULE and many of the volumes following, but there comes a time where its all been said and there's nothing new left to do with a story. Unfortunately for Sword of Truth that was about three books ago.

You want a short synopsis of this volume? Ok, Richard gets poisoned and must free some pitiful wimps to get an antidote; the emperor gins up a new magical creature (the worst yet!); zed gets captured and the Keep is taken; Kahlan is captured; Zed is freed; Kahlan is freed; Richard saves himself and the magical creature is done away with. Yeah! Now fluff that up to about a thousand pages, nine hundred of them being incredibly boring lectures about the evils of collectivism and how magic works and you have NAKED EMPIRE.

I suppose I am a bit bitter but I resent the fact that a story I really liked, and I really liked WIZARD'S FIRST RULE, has been turned into some hacks, word-spill, fluff piece. I also resent having this volume palmed off as something new when it really isn't. I suppose if the point was to make the author money without him having to come up with anything original than it worked, but I don't have to like it.

This book is NOT RECOMMENDED.

There are no spoilers since there is nothing to spoil.

This isn't really a novel. This is an absurd rant against pacifists and religion disguised as a fantasy story.
Richard Rahl has become one of the most annoying characters I have yet to encounter in any fantasy book. He breaks off into monologues that accomplish absolutely nothing in moving the plot forward and serve merely to serve as a platform for Terry Goodkind's rightwing philosophy. Minor characters are deliberately made into moronic idiots in order for Richard to start another long, grand speech about the glories of Objectivism. When this happened for the 5th time I wanted to cry. Long, bad speeches do not belong in a fiction novel.

The Bandakar should be renamed the straw men. Goodkind deliberately constructs an impossible and absurd society in order to make his philosophy seem more compelling and his arguments more solid.

Oh, and the ending is the most blatant example of Deus Ex Machina ever. Bar none. Give me a 0 star rating and I'd apply it instantly.

I don't write reviews often, but I really wanted to warn people away from the Sword of Truth series based on the last 2 volumes. It is such a shame because, like many of the reviewers here, I loved the earlier books and saw real promise to the series.

Why is this one so terrible. Well, have you ever read a book where 80 pages are dedicated to one speech? I counted them. From the point Richard assembles the crowd he wants to talk to, to the point where the conversation finished - it is a staggering 80 pages! In fact, more space is given to that than is given to building to the conclusion.

My Goodkind seems to be using these latest volumes to preach at people, and frankly, it makes for a very boring read.

Please, please, if you are considering reading the Sword of Truth series - don't. You will only end up disappointed like so many of the other reviewers here.

Do you remember getting getting goosebumps when Richard was named "The Seeker of Truth"? Do you remember how misty eyed you got when Gratch hugged Richard and said he "luuuuugggged" him when Richard tried to send him away? Or how you turned away from your computer at work to sneak a few pages in when Richard got captured by the Mord Sith? You ain't getting that emotion here or in the previous two books.

Actually, I'm wrong, there is one point in the book where that kind of emotion did briefly make an appearance. And that is with the reintroduction of two favorite characters that we haven't seen nor heard from for several books. Mainly because it was a link to the past books. Unfortunately great characters like Scarlet and Gratch seem to have been forgotten.

What I want from the next book or books is this: Richard, Kahlan, Cara, Zedd to be back together in D'Hara. I want Gratch and Scarlett to at least be mentioned (even though it was eluded to during the Pillars of Creation that Scarlet's kind may no longer exist). I want to see the Mord Sith worry the hell out of Richard by constantly protecting him. I want Chandelen and the Mud People. I want and epic battle when Jagang Order meet the D'Harans. I want more Nathan. And I want Richard to learn how to use his damn magic. I want goosebumps, misty eyes and I want to read at work when I should be working.

Goodkind has lost it. This book is patronizing, preachy, and boring! I never thought I'd call a Sword of Truth book boring. Richard has devolved from an interesting, complex, flawed character into an all-knowing, boring, orator. I agree with the other reviewers. It's preachy. Did I mention it's preachy? What's worse than that, however, is how all the other characters sit back and listen to Richard and bask in the other-worldly light coming off of him. In making Richard all-knowing, the other characters suffer for it (not to mention Richard--and us). Everyone traveling with Richard seems to be a sheep. So, is Goodkind trying to make Richard a god? Is that what this series is evolving into? Well, it doesn't work. Perfect people are boring.

The other people they encounter are so easily swayed by a few paragraphs of oration by Richard that their ideals couldn't have meant much in the first place. Therefore, it's patronizing.

And if I have to read one more time about "Kahalan's special smile...the one she save only for Richard," I think I'm going to scream.

And possibly the worst part is that this entire novel seems like a side trip away from the main plot. That makes 2 novels in a row that are away from the main story. Makes me think Goodkind doesn't have enough ideas to sustain the series. Maybe he should just end it. Give us a great book next time and end the series on a good note instead of having it shrivel into a prune.

Well, I'm done buying them (and I've bought them all--in hardcover). It's been over a month since I've read this book, and I still cannot believe how monumentally bad it is.

I have been a huge Goodkind fan in the past, even meeting him in person once at a bookstore. So I am probably more disappointed than a casual reader in the latest (and hopefully last) installment in this series.
I can sum up up the book in three sections:
1. Beginning: PADDED
2. Middle: PREACHY
3. End: POINTLESS AND PAT

1. Beginning: PADDED:
The first portion lags horribly, as characters spend all their time in repetitive dialog, rehashing things ad nauseum that they said only a few pages earlier, for no apparent reason. It feels as though there were 10 pages that needed to expanded to 10 chapters, and the method was talk, talk, talk without actually communicating anything new.
2. Middle: PREACHY
The middle is preachy. Did I say preachy? well, it is. Richard spends all his time expounding in the most stilted and pedantic fashion a very simple concept. In order to allow the author to hammer this sermon home time and again, he has to write an enclave of characters as unreasonably obtuse, to allow Richard the opportunity to reexplain the gist over an over again with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, while at the same time portraying anyone disagreeing with the sermon as blind or idiotic.
This might have been acceptable if the sermon was something enlightening or some sort of revelation. But its fairly basic: its ok for an organism to protect itself against a threat. There, I've given you the entire sermon in one sentence, but it takes chapters and chapters of reiteration until you're mind is numb from the repetition before he ever abandons the sermon...temporarily, only to reprise it again in the last third as an "I told you so".
3. End: POINTLESS AND PAT: In possibly the worst case ever witnessed of "Magicus ex machina", four supposedly insurmountable problems are instantly solved in the last 10% of the book by devices not revealed to the reader until that moment. One particular solution simply materializes out of thin air with no explanation or logic.
Additionally, an enemy supposedly more dangerous than anything previously encountered has an achilles heel that is both incredibly obvious and too easily exploited.

and did I mention preachy? ok, so I did.

This series formerly was a high example of engaging characters that valued honor and sacrifice above all, and this book turns that hallmark on its head: the characters are tedious or insipid, honor is absent and the sacrifice of others in favor of yourself is championed as the highest virtue.

I read this book all the way through as it was so bad it was unintentionally funny. There are many, many problems with this book that others have mentioned but I just have to mention a few problems with the book I had. At one stage our Hero Richard who is a paragon of Goodness decides that the only moral course of action he can take is to murder defenceless anti-violence protestors. This is despite the fact that he feels these people are deluded and that he has previously converted such people with an excruciatingly bad monologue (maybe he feels it would kinder to behead them). He kills these people as they are in his way, stopping him from reaching an antidote and saving his wife (yet again, how many times can this so called smart powerful women be the damsel in distress!!). Yet it turns out that he actually doesn't need the antidote and his wife wasn't there. So Richard has killed these people for nothing. Does Richard admit his mistake or show remorse for his error? Of course not. Showing all the insight and intelligence of the zealous fanatic the character has become Richard just says that anyone who opposes him had it coming. All this wouldn't matter so much if this weren't quite clearly an articulation of the author's own beliefs. Still Richard clearly isn't that smart so maybe it doesn't occur to him that he has done anything wrong. At one stage Richard and his band of dull witted cohorts find out that their nemesis can observe them through the eyes of animals, most often some large hawks that are some of the least scary monsters ever (At one stage hundreds of these things attack and the party only suffers a few scratches), and then proceeds to wonder how the enemy knows their every move while they have Betty the wonder goat with them.
Still maybe I am being unfair to an author that started this series with such promise. Perhaps he is writing an examination of how a man can become that which he most despises by constant obsession. The character has moved from the balanced interesting hero of the first book to the murderous fanatic of this book whose ends always justify the means. It seems extremely unlikely that this is Mr Goodkinds intent however as the last three books have been preaching his message ad nauseum at the expense of moving the narrative along and interviews Mr Goodkind has conducted in the media seem to support Richard's views as his own. I would recommend some basic philosophy (eg the Philosophy Gym or Sophie's world) to show how daft this puerile nonsense is. Alternatively for a far more intelligent take on libertarian views take a look at John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty". I would only recommend people read this stuff in the way that you might read David Irving or Mien Kampf to see what tragic paths an extreme ideology can lead you down. Finally some might be tempted to say "this is only fantasy" however the author has denied this saying that he wants his books to be considered philosophy. In that light I think the above comments are relevant.

Read George RR Martin instead (Fire and Ice series) as a much more enjoyable, intelligent series without being preached at by a zealot.