Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
48 of 53 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
I liked it !, June 2, 1999
By A Customer
I read this several years ago and I truly liked it. I was engrossed in the story and I did not pay any attention to writing style or grammar. The book held my attention and the pages kept turning. Had I written a review at that time I would have given this book five stars. No second thoughts.Now that I read all the negative reviews about the bad writing, I picked up my copy again to see if it really was that bad. I have to admit, it's certainly no candidate for the Nobel prize, but it's not "awful" either. It's a story being told in perfectly readable language. I find nothing wrong with that. Many reviewers said that this book takes too many ideas from other books. Maybe it does, but it also puts those ideas together to make a new and interesting story. If you get to the core of 90% of all fantasy novels it will turn out to be a story about an unlikely hero (occasionally heroine) with some mysterious powers or heritage embarking on a quest to fight the evil king/god/sorcerer and save the world. This is what I would call Classic Fantasy. I could read "Lord of the Rings" once a month, but I'd rather read different books from different authors even if they are based on the same storyline and their style may not be as polished as Tolkien's. Violence plays a big part in "Wizard's First Rule". I admit that I had to force myself to read through the torture bits. It made me sick and I am surprised that someone would give this book to an 11-year-old. I certainly wouldn't. It's okay to let the hero suffer once in a while instead of having him rush from one adventure to the next while he always prevails. But this went on and on and on. Less pages would have been necessary to get the point across. This book keeps getting compared to Jordan's "Wheel of Time". I read that as well and I also liked it. Being pushed hard to choose one over the other it would probably be Goodkind, but not by much. I like that each book has a satisfying ending so that I don't have to wait a year or even longer before I know what's going to happen. All in all I would recommend this book for those who read because they want a reprieve from everyday life, spend a few hours in a fantasy world and simply enjoy a good story. Read this book as if you would go to a "Lethal Weapon" or "Indiana Jones" movie. I decided to give this book four stars, so that no one mistakes it for the new bible of fantasy. It's good, but not that good. If you're looking for something more demanding, I suggest reading Guy Gavriel Kay, maybe "Tigana", which is the most intelligent fantasy novel that I have read to date.
|
|
|
38 of 45 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Very readable beginning to the series., February 12, 2002
Terry Goodkind, Wizard's First Rule (Tor, 1994)Terry Goodkind hasn't been around as long as some of the fantasy writers who are currently churning out long- winded, seemingly neverending series; Harry Turtledove's alternate-history alien-invasion World War II series' first book has been in print longer than most of Goodkind's whole catalogue. But, as J. R. R. Tolkein and Greg Bear have shown us, you don't have to be established to come up with a really whiz-bang first novel. Wizard's First Rule is, most decidedly, a whiz-bang first novel. The action opens with unassuming woodland guide Richard Cypher trying to dig up a few clues as to the means and motive of his father's recent death. While in the process, he spots four men menacing a woman, goes to her aid, and unleashes the chain of events that have taken us seven eight-hundred-plus-page books and counting to unravel. Make no mistake, when you crack the cover on the first Sword of Truth novel, you're committing yourself to a whole lot of reading. Sword of Truth is longer than Mission Earth, longer than Necroscope, longer than Michael Moorcock's presently-in-progress series. Think of a series containing a whole lot of big, thick books. Sword of Truth is longer. It'll probably reach Encyclopedia Britannica proportions before long. The good news is, of course, that Wizard's First Rule is a whole lot more readable than Britannica (in order, even). He's got more of an eye for the readable than Moorcock, and is more restrained than Lumley. Goodkind doesn't skimp on the character development, has an excellent eye for description and detail, and presents it all in such a way that, when you've finished the first book, you wonder how it is you managed to get through eight hundred twenty pages quite as fast as you did. (In other words, by the second one before you start the first, because you're not going to want to take enough of a break to run to the store and get it. Trust me, I know-my copy of Stone of Tears is still in the mail.) With such a large canvas on which to paint, Goodkind takes the luxury of building up the minor characters; one of my most common complaints with genre fiction is the surfeit of cardboard characters who are set up just to be killed, or what have you. When Goodkind sets a character up to be killed, you know everything from what the character had for breakfast to his psychological makeup to his favorite color. It's a refreshing change from the majority of fantasy novels. And it doesn't slow the book down, because even the minor characters are contributing in some way to the plot. This stands out, even at a time when fantasy seems to be at a high point in the public consciousness. George R. R. Martin and Philip Pullman may be getting more press and more awards than Terry Goodkind, but Wizard's First Rule stands easily with A Game of Thrones or The Golden Compass as the beginning to an excellent series. **** ½
|
|
|
41 of 51 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
PLEASE don't be suckered in by the 4-star average!, June 21, 2007
I read a lot of highly technical material for work so I admit I don't read as much for pleasure as many others. I prefer fantasy/sci-fi; Tolkien and Frank Herbert are obvious choices as favorites for deeper reading, and I admit I'm partial to McCaffrey's Pern books and Ray Feist when I want something light. Feist is the kind of writer who makes me think writing a fantasy novel would be fun and easy; just write up an old D&D campaign! (I realize it's not actually that simple and I certainly don't have time to pursue it myself, but that's how Feist makes me feel when I read him.)
I wanted something vaguely along those lines. I had heard of Goodkind and picked up _Phantom_ at Target right before heading off, not realizing it's the 11th book in the series. When I realized the series was called the "Sword of Truth" series, an alarm went off in my head (I need to learn to listen to those). But I found a bookstore on the trip and bought the first book, _Wizards First Rule_.
Ugh. I found this to be hopelessly hackneyed and depressingly derivative. (Warning: I haven't even read Jordan's WoT series and I *still* thought this was derivative.) I think "leave no cliche unturned" must have been Goodkind's motto when writing this. Other 1-star reviews here are spot-on with this; this novel is almost a parody of the fantasy/sci-fi genre. (Actually, it probably would have been better as a parody.)
I almost gave up on it numerous time but I hung in there to find out what a Confessor was and I really hope that was Goodkind's idea, because it was the only standout concept in the entire book. At that point the book was more than half over and I plowed on figuring I got that far, might as well finish.
The major "departure" from the cliche-fest is Goodkind's agenda of inserting political philosophy. I found this almost comically ham-handed. You see, the bad guys are Commies! Yep, complete with the "People's Palace." I actually laughed out loud at the "trial" of the farmer by the evil queen (whose name I forget; surprisingly, it isn't "Queen Mao"). Message to all you fantasy fans who think this is deep and philosophical because he included this: no, it really isn't. Not a single idea expressed is novel and his descriptions of the positions are simplistic caricatures.
And the 100-page excursion into S&M was simply juvenile and served almost exactly no purpose. I'm sure I would have loved it when I was 13; I thought McCaffrey's _Dragonflight_ was pretty racy back then.
And I fail to see what's so compelling about the characters that all these five-star reviews get on about. What's interesting about Richard? He's freaking superman: big, strong, slightly clueless (except when it's REALLY important to get out of some contrived jam), but flawless woodsman, horse rider, archer, swordsman, wannabe wizard, etc. Yawn. I was shocked that he didn't turn water into wine at some point in the book. While some of the other characters were indeed better, the problem is that the worst character happened to be the main protagonist and most of the pages were devoted to him.
One of the finer moments which almost caused me to put the book down was the name of the villain: Darken. Seriously, Darken. You know, as in "dark." Remember, kids, black = evil! I was similarly shocked when Goodkind didn't have him wear a black cowboy hat. I know, that's a really stupid surface feature and doesn't get to the heart of whether the writing or the story or the characters are good. But look at it this way: if the easy stuff is that blunt, how well do you think he did with the important stuff?
And for the love of all that is holy, who was Goodkind's editor? 800 pages? For this? I want that editor's job. "Sure, Terry, just leave it all in there... yeah, I gotta run, I have an afternoon tee time..." How about EDITING?
Now, to be honest, I didn't hate every minute of it. Honestly, when I finished this book and thought about how I felt about it, I was thinking 1.5 stars. Seeing that the average is four, though, I had to give it one rather than two to drop the average. There is NO WAY this is a four-star book. None. I can see how maybe someone with somewhat different tastes could give it a three, but four seems like a serious reach and five is IMPOSSIBLE. _Dune_ is a five-star book. _Lord of the Rings_ are five-star books. I'm very, very afraid to see that some people think this belongs in the same category. Very afraid indeed.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Show more editions and formats
Show fewer editions and formats
by Terry Goodkind
by Terry Goodkind
by Terry Goodkind
by Terry Goodkind
