Rating: 
Summary: The Summer of Love becomes the Winter of Discontent.
Review: If you hate hippies, this is your book. Our hero, the Seeker of Truth, he of the prophecy, 3000 years in the making, King of the D'Hara is wandering in the desert, having headaches, not eating meat, and wondering how to beat back the evil Empire and conquer the world. There are only 6 in his party, which is a small number to conquer the world with. Fortunately, he meets the cannon fodder to build his army from. Unfortunately, they live communally in (shudder) wooden buildings, make decisions by consensus, and live by a strict code of non-violence. He must convert them into bloodthirsty warriors capable of the cruelties of guerrila warfare. He does this with some really tedious speeches which show them that non-violence can not win against true evil - and that the enemy is true evil. They soon come around to Richard's version of libertarian or even anarchistic morals, and kill each other and the enemy with vivacity and verve. Richard regards this as an enormous moral advance.This is a novel of ideas, which shows all of the flaws such novels often have. The plot is driven by the ideas, not by reality, even the reality of the fantasy series. The book is full of deus ex machina rescues and plot turns which even in an action novel would probably upset you because they are so unlikely. If you are following the ideas perhaps you won't care how implausable the actions are, I guess. There are no real characters, either. Everyone is a cardboard cutout set up to hang an idea on. Some people change their ideas but no one develops as a human being - and no one is interesting as a human being. Richard's true love is seized by the evil slide, which is one of the worst things that could possibly happen to her, and it doesn't matter a bit. Who cares? He rescues her anyway as we knew he would, and it really wouldn't matter if he didn't. She is a bit player who gives him that special smile a couple of times and worries about his headaches.
What ideas then are being presented? Let each person follow their own conscience. Be sure you are right, then go ahead no matter what the cost to you or others. You'll make mistakes (like destroying the barriers that protect the good guys from the evil empire) but the issue is not the mistake but how you respond to having made it. Suck it up and move ahead. Deserve victory. It is hard not to see the actions in this book as the delusional fantasy of a bi-polar Richard. His magic sword magnifies rage, for instance. He is plotted against by powerful enemies who can, among other things, inhabit animals and birds, and seize souls. You never know when something appearing natural will be the enemy in disguise. The hero is, in effect, a terrorist, who has his own private reasons for each bit of death and destruction he causes. Richard could blow up the World Trade Center without batting an eye, if the evil empire controlled it. Speaking of the evil empire it was very hard for me not to see Bush in the actions of the masters of evil, particularly in their waste of the talents of others and subversion of knowledge, but I don't think that was the author's idea. Still, in the end the book's ideas are really more sympathetic to the bombers than to the government. Richard is more Timothy McVey than George Bush. But I don't think that was the idea, at all. That's the real problem with this novel of ideas.
Rating: 
Summary: Really, Really, Really Awful book
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Particularily Good, Not Particularily Bad
Review: Well what can I say. There were some nice action sequences, the plot was original, and there is some character development. But the problem is that all of Goodkind's characters are seemingly invincible! He has not killed off a single main character in any of his books, and this is no exception. He describes Richard as feeling weak throughout the book, but whenever he fights, trained soldiers feeling fit as a fiddle are still no match, despite the fact he cannot draw the Sword of Truth's power! Good enough to satisfy my Goodkind cravings (Pillars of Creation did NOT count) for awhile...
Rating: 
Summary: awesome
Review: AMAZING. TO THE DUST ALL THE OTHER ONES WHO DETESTED THIS BOOK.
Rating:
Summary: A big disappointment
Review: My husband and I are avid science fiction and fantasy readers. Together we've enjoyed several multivolume epics, including Terry Goodkind's "Sword of Truth" series. Each book expounds upon one of several rules of magic, beginning with the "Wizard's First Rule," which is that people are stupid. It's been something of a game with us, to try and figure out what each rule was before one of the characters, usually either Zed or Richard, got around to revealing it. Goodkind's developing abilities as a writer can be traced in successive volumes of the series, but all good things must come to an end and "The Sword of Truth" has definitely passed its peak. It's really too bad the series couldn't have ended with "Faith of the Fallen," because Goodkind's "novel of ideas" represented a high point in the series. It also marked a turning point in Goodkind's approach to writing -- namely the harnessing of fiction to explore the realm of philosophy. But where "Faith of the Fallen" offered an intriguing look at the issues of personal responsibility and socially-engineered equality, by the time "Naked Empire" came along, Goodkind's approach had become blatantly propagandist. "Naked Empire" appears to be an overt endorsement of the United States' pre-emptive invasion of Iraq -- but far from endorsing truth and moral clarity, Goodkind offers a thinly-veiled criticism of of the peace movement that is manipulative of reality and completely insulting to the intelligence of his readers. It's almost as if he's taken the wizard's first rule too much to heart. Obligatory biographical note: I was at the Civic Center in San Francisco to protest the invasion (it was never a "war" -- the foes were too unevenly matched). I can't speak for everyone at that rally, but we at least are not mindless peaceniks, oblivious to evil as Goodkind's book would portray us. On the contrary -- we are strongly opposed to evil and we don't want our country to betray its principles in the name of fighting a war on "terror." So reading a book like Mr. Goodkind's -- with Richard's slash 'n' hack response to a deliberately perverted portrayal of the peace movement -- was a slap in the face and an insult to the intelligence. And then there's the pacing. Goodkind rehashes past happenings endlessly, but not always in a way that makes any sense. Reading this book, I think some editor made the fatal error of agreeing to pay Mr. Goodkind by the word and then went to press with the manuscript as-is. How else can you explain the endless variations on the "Kahlen knew she was at fault because of what she did" nonsense? This stuff is repeated over and over again like a mantra, until Goodkind finally clarifies just what it was Kahlan did in a previous volume that caused this whole mess. Being a committed believer in Karma (a.k.a. the law of cause and effect), this is actually an aspect of Goodkind's books that has always interested me -- namely that a well-intentioned action, undertaken in response to a present problem, is actually the catalyst for subsequent crisis. But it isn't necessary to dwell on it endlessly. Then there's Richard's endless pontificating of beliefs that should have been obvious. Goodkind is preaching to the choir here, and it's more than a little tiresome. For all of these reasons, I think this series is past its prime. Enough is enough, already! But in the meantime, if Mr. Goodkind is going to use his fantasy to promote philosophical or political arguments, then at least let those arguments be sophisticated arguments that accurately depict the viewpoints of the opposing side.
Rating:
Summary: Not too bad
Review: This book continued down the trend of the past few books by being very preachy and 'philosophical', but it did so in a slightly less blatant way, making it better than 'Faith of the Fallen', for example.
Some may consider his views to be simply a justified element of his genre -- adult fantasy. I disagree with this wholeheartedly: his views, as expressed in this book, are not terribly complex.
This book seems to be stating the following two things:
1. There is good and there is evil, and when evil comes and rapes your women, it's ok to kill them all brutally.
2. If you do not recognize evil, you contribute to evil.
Ok? Richard had a difficult, almost incorrigible, audience. Terry Goodkind does not; Goodkind does not need to repeat his views over and over as if we were the characters in the books.
This book would have, from me at least, earned 4 if not 5 stars if the speeches were cut down to a bare minimum. As it was, I find myself skimming dialogue for something interesting to actually happen.
Nobody wants a repetition of the first two books; but the first two books were the best two books because every book thereafter, at some point or another, required a speech or a moral lesson.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a book conveying an author's beliefs. Look at Tolkein's work; it is FULL of his own personal baggage. The very main characters, hobbits, are the personification of everything Tolkein considers good in mankind.
Goodkind, however, seems to feel that his readers are as stupid as the people whom Richard is addressing. His readers need, apparently, to be reminded constantly in the form of a speech about what Goodkind feels.
Well, I rated it 3 stars so I think I should say a few good things about the story as well:
If you ignore the speeches, this is a fine example of Goodkind's work. The end isn't perfect, and for that I probably would have only rated it 4 out of 5 stars without the speeches, but overall it's a very well done story.
He managed to keep the tension going without separating Richard and Kahlan, a device that he is very fond of and badly needed a break. I may be mistaken but I believe this is the first book where they are not separated for long at any point in the story.
That device may be worn out, but it was providing tension, and he managed to keep that tension alive without it. That gives him major points in my book.
He also brought back all the favorite characters without, in most cases, forcing them into the story. The Ann/Nathan subplot felt a little forced, but it came to a resolution that was not as disruptive to the story as I was concerned it may be. Because of this, I felt that their subplot, while awkward in a way, added a little comic relief to the story which was much needed.
Overall a very well done book, Goodkind simply needs to stuff a sock in his mouth and his stories will be very much improved.
Rating:
Summary: a formula to read this book
Review: I read all the reviews before I read the book. I must say, sadly but truly, most of the reviews are right. The book has lost its way in so many ways, but let list the positive first.
1) The stories not concerning Richard, like with Verna, Zedd, or Nicholas are much more interesting than Richard's story.
2) Chase comes back with Rachel! That's a reason to read this book; I'd say. It definitely brings back memories from WFR.
3) Nathan and Ann are becoming a lot more interesting than before. I'm really enjoying Nathan's plot. Now the bad parts:
1) The ending is confusing and just sort of thrown together.
2) Richard is super boring. I mean, really really boring to listen to after awhile. This book should have been written in 300 pages and cut out all the philosophy or it should have implied the philosophy without directly hitting us over the head with it. More of the series is becoming a view of Rynd than a fantasy story. Maybe Goodkind needs to start looking into writing another Fountain Head rather than a fantasy series. Sorry, fans. Harsh. Ouch, but since FotF, so much of his books are about the Anthem.
3) What's most disturbing about this book is that the conditions before the start of the book and the end of the book are exactly the same! Beginning of book: Daharians are guarding the pass and the Wizard Keep is defended by Zedd. The Empire is growing and growing. End of the book: Daharians are guarding the pass and the Wizard Keep is defended by Zedd. The Empire is growing and growing. In short, the overall story needs to progress and its not doing it.
4) I have to say, as someone once told me, "THe most important thing you need to know about the stock market is when to pull out." Well, I think Goodkind needs to also learn when a series has reached its limits. I'll continue to read the series and be loyal, but if the next book is as bad as this... no more.
5) This book is great if you read it the way I read it. Skip all of Richard's speeches and you get a fast paced read.
Paul
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: In a word "Disaster"! This book was terrible! I agree with the reviewers that stated TG was preaching at us. I skipped over all the boring lectures and didn't miss a thing! TG needs to get back on track or give up writing. My recommendation is that you borrow this book from a friend or get it from a library. Do not spend money on this book!
Rating:
Summary: I hear an echo...
Review: Three words describe this book. Repetitive, Repetitive and yes, repetitive. This is not a single title book, it's a series. Therefore why do we need page upon page of reminders as to what happened in previous books? It's annoying to say the least and I feel, as a writer myself, ripped off. Where are the artfully written story lines? Where is the dialogue that keeps you up until 3am telling yourself, just one more chapter? They are not evident in this and the last volume, Pillars. For an author to stoop to this sad level of repetitiveness is such a disappointment to those of us who used to love the series. I will continue with reading the series but I have to ask, Mr. Goodkind, where are you? Please try and return to what once was. The well written word.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent continuation of a great series
Review: To say the least I am surprised about some of the negative reviews here. The series has matured over the years and is adult fantasy. Apparently many reviewers prefer fantasy that does not require any thinking. If intelligent discourse on ideas of consequence puts you off, then don't read this latest volume. But if intellectual discourse within a gripping story is apealing, then don't miss this book, or this series. I highly recommend this latest addition to the series, but suggest that you begin at the beginning and read the whole series. You will be swept up in a world of action, intrigue, and yes, apparently sadly for some readers, a world of ideas, especially in the last two superb volumes (my favorites of the series). The best thing about the Sword of Truth series is it matures and changes over time, much like your life. Hackneyed repitition of the same story line book after book may be appealing to some readers, but then I wonder why they don't simply re-read the first book and save their money! Get it! Read it! Enjoy it!
|
