Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
60 of 68 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.
|
|
|
41 of 49 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
|
|
|
24 of 29 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
inconsistent & badly written, but with good potential, May 30, 2001
Go buy George R.R. Martin, or even L.E. Modesitt instead; you'll thank me later. There are SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW, kind of.1) Characters are *constantly* changing their tone. They'll use stiff language one sentence, shunning all use of contractions, then use contractions left and right the next sentence. I hate this. It detracts from their believability -- characters should have a consistent feel to them, and if their speech is stilted and distant in one sentence, their speech should continue to be stilted and distant. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, which there aren't in this case. 2) Plot elements are thrown in willy-nilly. I like a good plot progression. I enjoy good writing. I hate it when an author smacks my head with a ten pound hammer to get a plot element across -- Zedd's a WIZARD?! Who would have guessed? Goodkind makes it nicely obvious, then (in case you missed it), makes it explicit, then (just in case you're a ...) has the protagonist talk about it alot. 3) Logical consistency is lacking. The concept of the boundary is logically inconsistent with the heart hounds, the timing of the boundary makes no sense in relation to Zedd's being the high wizard or Darken Rahl's appearance, etc. etc. etc. It's been THREE GENERATIONS, folks. People who were around *BEFORE THE BOUNDARY* are still alive. Why are the characters so surprised by each other? 4) The writing is inconsistent. One second Zedd will be giving a wonderful exposition of how a Seeker should act, the next his language is muddled and he's calling people 'dear one'. What up? I'm running out of space. This book bothered me -- the pubescent love-at-first-sight [stuff], the instant friendliness. There's a quote on the jacket from Marion Zimmer Bradley saying this book would "sweep the country as Tolkien's work did..." Good Lord, I hope not. What a waste of time that would be. - Andrew
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Terry Goodkind
by Terry Goodkind
by Terry Goodkind
by Terry Goodkind
by Terry Goodkind
