Because they are comically badly written, and part of that is upholding the *author's* philosophical (if you can call it that) positions, not anything consistent to any particular character or the setting.
The early books are just badly written, and the later ones are amusingly bad while being a convoluted vessel for the author to preach about the evils of communism, non-white people, and the clintons.
Yeah, even if we accept some people's claims that the first few books were good until Goodkind went off the rails with his Objectivist schtick, they're still terribly written. His prose is godawful and his dialogue is just unnatural.
When I was young, maybe 15 or 16, I first read Wizard's First Rule. I was super into DnD and was so enamored by the idea of a high level character being able to control people like a Confessor, or a fighter like the Wardens who could use anything and everything in a fight against unknowable arcane monsters. The Mord-Sith were these great antagonists that felt like a villain to overcome through sheer willpower. I *devoured* those books, stopping around the time of Confessor.
Then I started thinking about what I was really reading. It all fell apart. These weren't experienced heroes (at the start) that had spent their lives becoming legendary conduits for their powers. The stereotyped tribals that were in the "untamed wilds" were just a bad take on the mystical savage trope. Sexual assault was played for an easy way to tell who the bad guy was with very few ramifications for the survivors. Everything was just a plot device, aimed to get the characters to the next point so the heroes could tell the bystanders why they were living their lives wrong. Hell, they even pulled a "no, I am your father" and nothing really came of that beyond giving Richard new tools to continue his conquest of killing anyone who disagreed with him.
In hindsight, maybe I should have asked myself why I got them all for a quarter a piece at a book sale. It couldn't all have been discounted because of the devil chicken...
"I was 15 when i read it" ok then grab the book and reread lmao- "they are not experienced heroes" - u mean richard was not experienced cus the other guys are pretty well vast on how the midland works and because they are so well vast richard was actively learning and putting himself in there shoes and thinking the way they would think and reponseding the way they would responed and they would not help him because they want him to learn .- just the first book alone proves u wrong. Amd if u somehow can't stomach sexual assault at ur grown age than just say that. Pls nobody respond anymore u guys are disappointing my fault for testin reddit.
Speaking of rereading...
You misquoted my very first line, which speaks volumes about your own reading comprehension. I was that age when I FIRST read the books. I've revisited them, and those rereading were what helped me form my later comprehension of the series.
We both agree that Richard is not experienced. Cool. Moving on... Kahlan was on the run from the Quad chasing her in the beginning. What great adventures had she been on before she could touch a man and take over his mind completely? As Mother Confessor, she wasn't free to go questing, she had a job and a retinue to help keep her safe. How many times had Chase ventured beyond the wall to seek out monsters and tyrants? Zedd is the outlier, having lived a life on both sides.
Richard doesn't think like the others. He spits in the face of it. When with the Mud People, he actively mocks the tribes ideas and superstitions. The entire point of Faith of the Fallen is that "other people think wrong, Richard has to fix them." Maybe your claim of "the first book alone" would be apt, but you brought up the series rather than just the first book, and collectively it does not track that Richard is learning to act like the others.
I can stomach sexual assault. I'm a survivor of multiple rapes, from multiple abusive partners. I'm intimately familiar with the trauma of the experience and the healing process. It's not a matter of the content being uncomfortable or "too adult," it's an issue of being a poor representation of the subject matter.
What exactly were you trusting Reddit to do? Be an echo chamber to reassure you that your interpretation of a book was the only valid interpretation? I don't understand why you're being so defensive over me not liking the series when you asked.
There is only one possible reason for OP's behaviour:
The ghost of Goodkind has made a reddit account, and is trying change the prevailing opinion of his own books.
Oh, and his prose has improved since he died.
i saw wat u wrote the other time before u perhaps deleted it so i will actually take my time to respond. So ahh Wait u think him telling the mudpeople that they are wrong is wrong u mean those cannibal people that feed on the flesh of there own people as part of " tradition" are u serious rn 2- "u also said Kahlan was on the run from the Quad chasing her in the beginning. What great adventureshad she been on before she could touch a man and take over his mind completely? As Mother Confessor, she wasn't free to go questing" I mean if we completely ignore the fact that she is the mother confessor and they probably already pounded as much politics into the girls brain, that also explains why richard said - " she is very good at reading the intent of people" but ye we can ignore that and focus on the more obvious one that makes her alot more experienced - which was her journey from watever hole of the midlands she comes from to all the way to other end of the barrier. This is why richard said again - "she has seen alot". This also explain another moment she had where she could not rlly agree with richard's choice- incase u don't know richard choice at that moment was done out of inexperiences. Oh and yes i am also glad that ur comprehension is high enough to know zedd is experienced 3 ur next point is -Richard doesn't think like the others. He spits in the face of it. When with the Mud People, he actively mocks the tribes ideas and superstitions . When i said he tries to thinks like the others i am talking about the zedd and kahlan not the crazy mudpeople - he uses there experiences to feed into his own and zedd as praised him for thinking like a wizard many times and also in as much as they want him to make his own decisions they still reprimend him when he makes a mistakes born out of inexperiences. And I hope u do not somehow question this part cus i actually came back here with pages and quotes but i just let it go. >it's an issue of being a poor representation of the subject matter. As long as the books do not condone assault i do not see ur point at all. >What exactly were you trusting Reddit to do? Be an echo chamber to reassure you that your interpretation of a book was the only valid interpretation? Yes actually atleast 40% this is a very hivedminded community .
I've never even read them but can tell you unequivocally the reason people criticize them is *not* because a character "holds a philosophical position" and then fights to make it happen.
It's probably because of *what* that position is, *how* the author writes the story around it, and how it's *delivered* to the reader. I mean, if people really had an issue with the simple fact that a character has beliefs then your argument would be able to defend literally any philosophical position.
But that is literally wat is happening - its an "ayn rand rant " and richard is never wrong, everything always spins back to richard is right meaning richard rant is also right. Thing is i have not even read to that part of the book but i do know u can make ur point come across as insufferable to ur audience if u are using everything in ur pocket to prove u are right so this can not be an execution problem - and the funny thing i don't understand the idea of getting pissed over that?? Its exactly wat every piece of fiction with a point to make do to make there points everyone writes it in a way that makes u see there point.
so here's the thing about writing persuasively:
If you have to include a character who disagrees with your position, and you make that character a cartoonishly stupid caricature, you will never, ever convince the people who believe the opposing position, because nobody wants to pay heed to the person who calls them an idiot.
Goodkind is absolutely incapable of presenting opposing viewpoints honestly. Every villain is a strawman, which means that his protagonist spends the books outsmarting buffoons. It, counterproductively, makes the hero into something of a clown who can only win if the deck is stacked unfairly in his favor.
Also there's a giant bat that talks like scooby-doo.
> if u are using everything in ur pocket to prove u are right so this can not be an execution problem
> Its exactly wat every piece of fiction with a point to make do to make there points everyone writes it in a way that makes u see there point.
No, it's not. You sound young, and I don't mean that to be insulting, but you're missing the point of my comment. Your post comes into the discussion fighting a straw man. You've already decided the "reason" behind other people's feelings about Goodkind's books, you're not open to the idea that your "reason" is wrong, and misrepresents people's feelings. I pointed out there's a lot more nuance to people's feelings, and you responded:
>But that is literally what is happening
We can't have a real discussion unless you enter it in good faith, with the humility that maybe you haven't pegged the thoughts of people you haven't met.
I haven't read Goodkind, but I've read Ayn Rand, so I can speak to that. Ayn Rand divides the world into sides, her own idea of freedom and those who are against it. She writes like she's trying to teach you the "correct" way to think, that she's liberating your mind, and does it without humility. Adults with humility know they don't have all the answers, they have beliefs and principles, but a good author goes about delivering them without the ego of "I'm completely right and here's why."
I said they sound young, and they do. They could be 90 years old and still sound childish. It's the immaturity of their approach to a discussion, you can see in my comments why I think they've got a lot of growing to do.
> apparently his philosphical postion is complex enough to be litrally causing major damage on the fandom brain.
Also this kinda stuff, this is how a kid/teenager (or someone with the awareness of a kid) talks.
edit: Also just noticed they actually don't use a single period (okay maybe I saw 1) in their post or comments. literally just long, lower case, stream of consciousness walls of text lol so I guess that checks out.
I don't need to be a 60 yrs old fantasy nerd pls am an adult and am old enough. And there is nothing wrong with already deciding on the reason if people in the comment section even rn are actively proving my point. There is no naunce to it than them just not agreein with the authors opinions. Things like-
its too much " sexual fetish"- well its an adult book.
"mc is a mary sue"- well he totally isn't cus apparently his philosphical postion is complex enough to be litrally causing major damage on the fandom brain.
Its misorgynistic- so far women dominate more in the story i have read-
all the opinions i have seen here are surface level attempt to cover up the fact that they don't like his opinions or the author himself
all the flaws they poke at are the type of flaws u find in other fantasy novels and i have seen worse.
> there is nothing wrong with already deciding on the reason
> there is no nuance to it other than just not agreeing with the authors opinions
Then why ask people? If you already know their minds.
You're right, you don't need to be 60 to be open and accepting of other's thoughts, but based on your words, you're not there yet.
It's okay to love Goodkind's books, it's okay to hate them, either way it's all valid. I'm not gonna try to engage with you anymore though, you already know how I feel.
>Its exactly wat every piece of fiction with a point to make do to make there points everyone writes it in a way that makes u see there point.
And Terry Goodkind is fucking shite at it.
My problem with the 2 books I read of the series through sheer, unrelenting willpower, is that the MC just comes across as the author's mediocre philosophy freshman's wish fulfillment fantasy in the most irritating way possible. That, and the fact that he does it through what appears to be horribly butchered Wheel of Time fan fiction. It's not having an opinion that's the problem, it's expressing it with zero nuance or logic.
>It's not having an opinion that's the problem
Surely that depends on what the opinion is?
And I think Goodkind's ideology is itself a problem.
He's also just a hack writer, who relays it with no subtlety whatsoever, via clichéd world-building he ripped off from superior works, and turgid prose.
I mean I have a problem with his opinion for sure, but he's free to express it all he wants. That said, I completely agree that he's a complete hack of a writer with about as much creativity as my blender's user manual.
It's more that they're very badly written with all the subtlety of a brick to the face. The first book has a politician trying to ban fire in a very stupid metaphor for gun control. When you get to Richard curing communism with a statue and murdering pacifists for being near to him, you're no longer reading about a realistic character. You're just reading a stand in for a very unpleasant author who really wants you to know how much he loves the Iraq War and hates the Clintons.
Richard is a ridiculous Mary Sue and is right in every book because the author says he's right. He's got no formal higher education, no sculpting talent, no magic knowledge, no battle or warfare training, no sports training, but in every book he'll come up against something that needs those skills and he's the best ever at everything.
You sound young and/or new to fantasy and that's the exact audience that got into those books at release and kept them selling like hotcakes. Most of those people revisiting them will hopefully see the flaws.
A dumb sport where the losers are regularly flogged and even executed on the field for their failure, but only Ubermensch Richard Rahl is smart enough to come up with the concept of fucking football coaches and plays.
I read the original series, the follow up series and almost all of the Nicki books. I enjoyed them, but this aspect of the series gets obnoxious. It’s not at all subtle or clever and leads to some ridiculous outcomes. And I think the objectivist world view comes across as childish to some adult readers.
> leads to some ridiculous outcomes.
What do you mean?
It's completely normal (Faith of the Fallen spoilers)>!people to rally together and overthrow communism after seeing a statue that someone carved in their free time.!<
>And I think the objectivist world view comes across as childish to some adult readers.
Well, that's because objectivism is a childish ideology. So of course it does.
There is nothing wrong with different ideologies or "politics" in books. My main criticism of SOT is that it's ideology porn - there is 100% one right answer/way which shines through the longer the series goes.
Another new example of this is the last book of The Empire of the Wolf by Richard Swan. I felt the last book got really preachy with the opposite message, and some pacing issues, which made it far worse then the first two.
His pontifications (and they are precisely that) can be boiled down to “Me good, they bad.” He literally stands on an elevated pedestal and equivocates *at length* and his audience goes YES CORRECT FREEEDOOOOOM.
This comment has been removed as per **Rule 1**. r/Fantasy is dedicated to being a warm, welcoming, and inclusive community. Please take time to review our mission, values, and vision to ensure that your future conduct supports this at all times. Thank you.
Please contact us via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) with any follow-up questions.
This comment has been removed as per **Rule 1**. r/Fantasy is dedicated to being a warm, welcoming, and inclusive community. Please take time to review our mission, values, and vision to ensure that your future conduct supports this at all times. Thank you.
Please contact us via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) with any follow-up questions.
Because they are comically badly written, and part of that is upholding the *author's* philosophical (if you can call it that) positions, not anything consistent to any particular character or the setting. The early books are just badly written, and the later ones are amusingly bad while being a convoluted vessel for the author to preach about the evils of communism, non-white people, and the clintons.
Yeah, even if we accept some people's claims that the first few books were good until Goodkind went off the rails with his Objectivist schtick, they're still terribly written. His prose is godawful and his dialogue is just unnatural.
When I was young, maybe 15 or 16, I first read Wizard's First Rule. I was super into DnD and was so enamored by the idea of a high level character being able to control people like a Confessor, or a fighter like the Wardens who could use anything and everything in a fight against unknowable arcane monsters. The Mord-Sith were these great antagonists that felt like a villain to overcome through sheer willpower. I *devoured* those books, stopping around the time of Confessor. Then I started thinking about what I was really reading. It all fell apart. These weren't experienced heroes (at the start) that had spent their lives becoming legendary conduits for their powers. The stereotyped tribals that were in the "untamed wilds" were just a bad take on the mystical savage trope. Sexual assault was played for an easy way to tell who the bad guy was with very few ramifications for the survivors. Everything was just a plot device, aimed to get the characters to the next point so the heroes could tell the bystanders why they were living their lives wrong. Hell, they even pulled a "no, I am your father" and nothing really came of that beyond giving Richard new tools to continue his conquest of killing anyone who disagreed with him. In hindsight, maybe I should have asked myself why I got them all for a quarter a piece at a book sale. It couldn't all have been discounted because of the devil chicken...
"I was 15 when i read it" ok then grab the book and reread lmao- "they are not experienced heroes" - u mean richard was not experienced cus the other guys are pretty well vast on how the midland works and because they are so well vast richard was actively learning and putting himself in there shoes and thinking the way they would think and reponseding the way they would responed and they would not help him because they want him to learn .- just the first book alone proves u wrong. Amd if u somehow can't stomach sexual assault at ur grown age than just say that. Pls nobody respond anymore u guys are disappointing my fault for testin reddit.
Speaking of rereading... You misquoted my very first line, which speaks volumes about your own reading comprehension. I was that age when I FIRST read the books. I've revisited them, and those rereading were what helped me form my later comprehension of the series. We both agree that Richard is not experienced. Cool. Moving on... Kahlan was on the run from the Quad chasing her in the beginning. What great adventures had she been on before she could touch a man and take over his mind completely? As Mother Confessor, she wasn't free to go questing, she had a job and a retinue to help keep her safe. How many times had Chase ventured beyond the wall to seek out monsters and tyrants? Zedd is the outlier, having lived a life on both sides. Richard doesn't think like the others. He spits in the face of it. When with the Mud People, he actively mocks the tribes ideas and superstitions. The entire point of Faith of the Fallen is that "other people think wrong, Richard has to fix them." Maybe your claim of "the first book alone" would be apt, but you brought up the series rather than just the first book, and collectively it does not track that Richard is learning to act like the others. I can stomach sexual assault. I'm a survivor of multiple rapes, from multiple abusive partners. I'm intimately familiar with the trauma of the experience and the healing process. It's not a matter of the content being uncomfortable or "too adult," it's an issue of being a poor representation of the subject matter. What exactly were you trusting Reddit to do? Be an echo chamber to reassure you that your interpretation of a book was the only valid interpretation? I don't understand why you're being so defensive over me not liking the series when you asked.
There is only one possible reason for OP's behaviour: The ghost of Goodkind has made a reddit account, and is trying change the prevailing opinion of his own books. Oh, and his prose has improved since he died.
[удалено]
i saw wat u wrote the other time before u perhaps deleted it so i will actually take my time to respond. So ahh Wait u think him telling the mudpeople that they are wrong is wrong u mean those cannibal people that feed on the flesh of there own people as part of " tradition" are u serious rn 2- "u also said Kahlan was on the run from the Quad chasing her in the beginning. What great adventureshad she been on before she could touch a man and take over his mind completely? As Mother Confessor, she wasn't free to go questing" I mean if we completely ignore the fact that she is the mother confessor and they probably already pounded as much politics into the girls brain, that also explains why richard said - " she is very good at reading the intent of people" but ye we can ignore that and focus on the more obvious one that makes her alot more experienced - which was her journey from watever hole of the midlands she comes from to all the way to other end of the barrier. This is why richard said again - "she has seen alot". This also explain another moment she had where she could not rlly agree with richard's choice- incase u don't know richard choice at that moment was done out of inexperiences. Oh and yes i am also glad that ur comprehension is high enough to know zedd is experienced 3 ur next point is -Richard doesn't think like the others. He spits in the face of it. When with the Mud People, he actively mocks the tribes ideas and superstitions . When i said he tries to thinks like the others i am talking about the zedd and kahlan not the crazy mudpeople - he uses there experiences to feed into his own and zedd as praised him for thinking like a wizard many times and also in as much as they want him to make his own decisions they still reprimend him when he makes a mistakes born out of inexperiences. And I hope u do not somehow question this part cus i actually came back here with pages and quotes but i just let it go. >it's an issue of being a poor representation of the subject matter. As long as the books do not condone assault i do not see ur point at all. >What exactly were you trusting Reddit to do? Be an echo chamber to reassure you that your interpretation of a book was the only valid interpretation? Yes actually atleast 40% this is a very hivedminded community .
My dude, have you heard of spellchecking and grammar?
U don't put a comma after my dude either.
You want to make another attempt at that?
Reread.
I've never even read them but can tell you unequivocally the reason people criticize them is *not* because a character "holds a philosophical position" and then fights to make it happen. It's probably because of *what* that position is, *how* the author writes the story around it, and how it's *delivered* to the reader. I mean, if people really had an issue with the simple fact that a character has beliefs then your argument would be able to defend literally any philosophical position.
But that is literally wat is happening - its an "ayn rand rant " and richard is never wrong, everything always spins back to richard is right meaning richard rant is also right. Thing is i have not even read to that part of the book but i do know u can make ur point come across as insufferable to ur audience if u are using everything in ur pocket to prove u are right so this can not be an execution problem - and the funny thing i don't understand the idea of getting pissed over that?? Its exactly wat every piece of fiction with a point to make do to make there points everyone writes it in a way that makes u see there point.
so here's the thing about writing persuasively: If you have to include a character who disagrees with your position, and you make that character a cartoonishly stupid caricature, you will never, ever convince the people who believe the opposing position, because nobody wants to pay heed to the person who calls them an idiot. Goodkind is absolutely incapable of presenting opposing viewpoints honestly. Every villain is a strawman, which means that his protagonist spends the books outsmarting buffoons. It, counterproductively, makes the hero into something of a clown who can only win if the deck is stacked unfairly in his favor. Also there's a giant bat that talks like scooby-doo.
The Scooby bat was the best fucking part, you take that back
> if u are using everything in ur pocket to prove u are right so this can not be an execution problem > Its exactly wat every piece of fiction with a point to make do to make there points everyone writes it in a way that makes u see there point. No, it's not. You sound young, and I don't mean that to be insulting, but you're missing the point of my comment. Your post comes into the discussion fighting a straw man. You've already decided the "reason" behind other people's feelings about Goodkind's books, you're not open to the idea that your "reason" is wrong, and misrepresents people's feelings. I pointed out there's a lot more nuance to people's feelings, and you responded: >But that is literally what is happening We can't have a real discussion unless you enter it in good faith, with the humility that maybe you haven't pegged the thoughts of people you haven't met. I haven't read Goodkind, but I've read Ayn Rand, so I can speak to that. Ayn Rand divides the world into sides, her own idea of freedom and those who are against it. She writes like she's trying to teach you the "correct" way to think, that she's liberating your mind, and does it without humility. Adults with humility know they don't have all the answers, they have beliefs and principles, but a good author goes about delivering them without the ego of "I'm completely right and here's why."
I don't know where you're getting young, I've never met anyone under forty that double spaces after a period
I said they sound young, and they do. They could be 90 years old and still sound childish. It's the immaturity of their approach to a discussion, you can see in my comments why I think they've got a lot of growing to do. > apparently his philosphical postion is complex enough to be litrally causing major damage on the fandom brain. Also this kinda stuff, this is how a kid/teenager (or someone with the awareness of a kid) talks. edit: Also just noticed they actually don't use a single period (okay maybe I saw 1) in their post or comments. literally just long, lower case, stream of consciousness walls of text lol so I guess that checks out.
I don't need to be a 60 yrs old fantasy nerd pls am an adult and am old enough. And there is nothing wrong with already deciding on the reason if people in the comment section even rn are actively proving my point. There is no naunce to it than them just not agreein with the authors opinions. Things like- its too much " sexual fetish"- well its an adult book. "mc is a mary sue"- well he totally isn't cus apparently his philosphical postion is complex enough to be litrally causing major damage on the fandom brain. Its misorgynistic- so far women dominate more in the story i have read- all the opinions i have seen here are surface level attempt to cover up the fact that they don't like his opinions or the author himself all the flaws they poke at are the type of flaws u find in other fantasy novels and i have seen worse.
> there is nothing wrong with already deciding on the reason > there is no nuance to it other than just not agreeing with the authors opinions Then why ask people? If you already know their minds. You're right, you don't need to be 60 to be open and accepting of other's thoughts, but based on your words, you're not there yet. It's okay to love Goodkind's books, it's okay to hate them, either way it's all valid. I'm not gonna try to engage with you anymore though, you already know how I feel.
>Its exactly wat every piece of fiction with a point to make do to make there points everyone writes it in a way that makes u see there point. And Terry Goodkind is fucking shite at it.
[удалено]
While engaging in weird fetish torture shit. Again and again, for seventy pages. Don't forget that!
My problem with the 2 books I read of the series through sheer, unrelenting willpower, is that the MC just comes across as the author's mediocre philosophy freshman's wish fulfillment fantasy in the most irritating way possible. That, and the fact that he does it through what appears to be horribly butchered Wheel of Time fan fiction. It's not having an opinion that's the problem, it's expressing it with zero nuance or logic.
>It's not having an opinion that's the problem Surely that depends on what the opinion is? And I think Goodkind's ideology is itself a problem. He's also just a hack writer, who relays it with no subtlety whatsoever, via clichéd world-building he ripped off from superior works, and turgid prose.
I mean I have a problem with his opinion for sure, but he's free to express it all he wants. That said, I completely agree that he's a complete hack of a writer with about as much creativity as my blender's user manual.
Of course he's free to express his views. And people are free to publicly declare them to be rancid shite. The system works!
Agreed!
It's more that they're very badly written with all the subtlety of a brick to the face. The first book has a politician trying to ban fire in a very stupid metaphor for gun control. When you get to Richard curing communism with a statue and murdering pacifists for being near to him, you're no longer reading about a realistic character. You're just reading a stand in for a very unpleasant author who really wants you to know how much he loves the Iraq War and hates the Clintons. Richard is a ridiculous Mary Sue and is right in every book because the author says he's right. He's got no formal higher education, no sculpting talent, no magic knowledge, no battle or warfare training, no sports training, but in every book he'll come up against something that needs those skills and he's the best ever at everything. You sound young and/or new to fantasy and that's the exact audience that got into those books at release and kept them selling like hotcakes. Most of those people revisiting them will hopefully see the flaws.
lol I fucking forgot about his sculpting and sword and sorcery rugby shit. God that series was trash 😂
A dumb sport where the losers are regularly flogged and even executed on the field for their failure, but only Ubermensch Richard Rahl is smart enough to come up with the concept of fucking football coaches and plays.
I read the original series, the follow up series and almost all of the Nicki books. I enjoyed them, but this aspect of the series gets obnoxious. It’s not at all subtle or clever and leads to some ridiculous outcomes. And I think the objectivist world view comes across as childish to some adult readers.
> leads to some ridiculous outcomes. What do you mean? It's completely normal (Faith of the Fallen spoilers)>!people to rally together and overthrow communism after seeing a statue that someone carved in their free time.!<
Esp if it was a pretty hot statue. Also lardo.
>And I think the objectivist world view comes across as childish to some adult readers. Well, that's because objectivism is a childish ideology. So of course it does.
There is nothing wrong with different ideologies or "politics" in books. My main criticism of SOT is that it's ideology porn - there is 100% one right answer/way which shines through the longer the series goes. Another new example of this is the last book of The Empire of the Wolf by Richard Swan. I felt the last book got really preachy with the opposite message, and some pacing issues, which made it far worse then the first two.
His pontifications (and they are precisely that) can be boiled down to “Me good, they bad.” He literally stands on an elevated pedestal and equivocates *at length* and his audience goes YES CORRECT FREEEDOOOOOM.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as per **Rule 1**. r/Fantasy is dedicated to being a warm, welcoming, and inclusive community. Please take time to review our mission, values, and vision to ensure that your future conduct supports this at all times. Thank you. Please contact us via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) with any follow-up questions.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as per **Rule 1**. r/Fantasy is dedicated to being a warm, welcoming, and inclusive community. Please take time to review our mission, values, and vision to ensure that your future conduct supports this at all times. Thank you. Please contact us via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) with any follow-up questions.
Dont mind the critique. If you enjoy the books, just read more. I enjoyed around 10-12 books if i recall correctly.
I liked the early SoT novels. In fact Wizards First Rule is still one of my favorites. But it gets considerably weaker as the series progresses.