I read Stone of Tears because WFR got me hooked on the characters, particularly Richard, the hero, and I wanted more. For me, Stone of Tears was an even better story. Do you know that feeling when you identify with a character so much that you start writing your own dialog for him? I hope that's not just me who does that...

I agree with a lot of reviewers who talk about wooden dialog and some unbelievable situations. Most of the men and some of the women in the story seem to have physical abilities and endurance that would sweep the olympic games if they ever tore the veil between that world and ours. But, listen: that's not important. To me, emotions are important, and intelligent characters. I don't want to be yelling at dumb characters, in my head.

I identify with Richard. He's an angry young man with a strong personal code. He's no wuss. He's smart. I once was a young man like that, too, so it felt good to slip into his skin.

Ultimately, my test for a good book is whether it changes how I experience the world. This series is doing that. I'm thinking about my own experience as a Seeker, and my own personal Sword of Truth. Sound silly? In 1999, I quit a safe job and became a consultant. I had no savings, nor equipment, nor preparation. This was a Sword of Truth moment, I now realize. It's a moment that comes rarely in life-- when you see what you must do and you do it despite the pain it will cause you. We're caught up in so many complicated threads in our modern lives, Terry Goodkind is the kind of writer who helps me reflect on how I can maintain my moral compass.


Probably won't finish reading this one   December 14, 1999
 22 out of 39 found this review helpful

I absolutely loved Wizard's First Rule, and enthusastically purchased the second book. I'm around 1/3 of the way through, and that will probably be it for me. The writing is excellent and well-paced. But disappointment #1 came with the introduction of the "Sisters of Light" (read Aes Sedai). C'mon, I know there will be comparable events, characters, etc accross fantasy books, but this isn't even an original thought. I like Robert Jordan, but don't want to re-read him under the guise of another author. Disappointment #2, and the reason I won't finish, is the unecessary detail given to the graphic sexual "perversions" if you will. I won't spell out for those reading this exactly what I'm referring to. Allude to them, Terry, it makes for a better book. Jordan does it well, as does Lawhead and Eddings. So, I'm onto George R R Martin now, which is a shame, because I think your story telling, pace and style are actually better than Mr. Jordan's. Hence the rating of three. But I don't need the rest. I can read Stephen King for that.


Another Brilliant effort By GoodKind   August 8, 2000
 18 out of 19 found this review helpful

I noticed somebody giving a review on this after reading 1/3 the book. Such a review should be given only 1/3rd its weight in value in my opinion. First of, the so called "sexual situations" are directed at adults. Goodkind say's he writes these books with adults in mind. If there is so much evil in these fantasy type stories, its only common place that such gory sex acts might exist too. I don't have a problem with that. If the reviewer continued reading, he'd know the Sisters of Light are nothing like the Aes Sedai of Jordans world. In conclusion, this is a fabulous tale, and I give it 5 stars. I have read all the books in this series and their wonderful. Each book is nicely concluded and we're not kept hanging.


Goodkind manages to shoot himself in the foot again...   April 26, 2001
 18 out of 26 found this review helpful

Good writing consists of just a few basic things: interesting dialogue, concise sentences/paragraphs, and focused ideas/plot/characters. Sadly, none of Goodkind's works contain these three simple writing rules.

Interesting dialogue: "You are a *special* person, Richard." "You're my friend... That's what friends are for..." This is really annoying when it comes up nearly every other page. Goodkind simplifies his dialogue to the point where an attentive reader will feel insulted. Come on, chum, we're not that retarded (unless you've been buying the whole damn series).

Concise sentences/paragraphs: Why in the hell is this book 1000 pages long? Even "War and Peace" isn't this long, and it's got enough epic plot to fill a hundred Goodkind novels. This boy needs an editor to distill this crap down. Longer does not equal better. (Read the Earthsea novels.)

Focused ideas/plot/characters: It's like wandering in Wonderland, but lacking Alice's cat. There are a quite a few focused ideas here: sexual perversion, gratuitous violence, defecation (read the part about the palace), cardboard relationships, cliches, etc. Unfocused include: truth, magic, characters, and plot. The magic system is unwieldy, insipid, and simplistic (additive and negative magics?!). Goodkind mentioned something about "righteous anger" in the first novel; good to see that "righteous anger" actually means "righteous slaughter/murder." He should've told us earlier. Richard and Kahlan are like love-sick teenagers, and the combined IQ of these two is lower than my caesar salad. Actually, one should ask: What plot? If there is a meaningful plot here, I'll be amazed.

One could write an English doctoral thesis on Goodkind's usage, but his list of follies also includes all the "borrowed" ideas from Robert Jordan (who suffers many of the same problems) and Terry Brooks (ditto). We're going to keep on receiving crap in fantasy and science fiction until we demand better authors. At this point, it doesn't seem likely though...


Unfortunate.   July 9, 2003
 13 out of 13 found this review helpful

The only thing that keeps Goodkind from being the most popular fantasy writer to date is the fact that all the plots are unoriginal, the dialogue is often unrealistic, and the characters never change. Wizard's First Rule was worth buying and reading; it supplied hours upon hours of entertainment for me. I enjoyed the characters and the action. However, if Goodkind is only going to write one plot through out the entire series, I find no purpose in reading the rest of the 'Sword' books. There's always some kind of badguy/villian who wants to conquer the world with either an object or his powers, and Richard along with Kahlan go out to destroy this evil being before his plans are accomplished. While Kahlan and Richard are torn apart in this book, there's also an aggrivating sense of Dramatic irony, much like there was, (Irritatingly) in Wizard's First Rule with the Box of Orden being held right underneath their noses for about two hundred pages before they even think about it being held where it was. Used with the right pen of the right author, this could be used as a suspenseful element, but when Goodkind uses it, it turns out as pure disaster. Goodkind, leave the dramatic irony for Shakespeare. Also, might I add, Terry Goodkind's imagination is kind of warped in a weird sense. It's not as sadistic as people are really saying it is, because Goodkind is just adding an element of gritty realisticness that chills to the bone, (The Mord-Sith are so scary, and the torture scenes are really brutal and it makes you feel as if you're there) but even with some experience and a rather good hand with the pen, he often bores the reader and drags out some scenes with romance scenes that feel like a daytime ABC soap opera.
However, I would like to point out that he's not as bad as some people are saying he is. He's not the worst writer in the world; he keeps the ingredients of a modern fantasy novel at hand to use, (Dragons, Kings, wizards, heroes, escapism, rescues, damsals in distress,) but his plotlines are often predictable. Like I said earlier, they're really all the same.
What I just said, though, does not mean I support his stories. The first one was a gem, yes, but it is because of writers like Goodkind, Jordan, and millions of others that fantasy is in the major piles of crud that it is. Tolkien was a good author, but it is because of him that every other author of fantasy is constantly trying to conquer and dominate his world, which is simply impossible. When will fantasy writers get over trying to be Tolkien? There used to be such a thing as independant heroes who didn't wine during grave situations where they always had to have the help of friends or family or the local 'wizard' to come and save them. We need more stories like the Red Sonja books, which are now, most unfortunately, out of print. Howard's 'Conan' books. I'm still convinced that no author has ever tried to pluck this genre which is going nowhere in my book out of the frustrating area that it dwells in. We need real fantasy books with real, muscle-bound broadsword wielding heroes that slay beasts and monsters while laughing. Not scared wanna-be Frodo's that travel across a land to get tortured and be broken in spirit until they accidentally stumble across the bad guy and then somehow get the magical item they started on the journey for in the first place.
What I'm saying is, read Wizard's First Rule. Then stop there. The other books, simply in my opinion, are not worth reading.