The rest of the series is devoted to his freethinking vs. After the first two or three books, it diverges from its Jordanesque roots though, and from its original plot/point, in my opinion. A lot of people think he ripped off Robert Jordan's 'Wheel of Time' series, and for the first two or three books, I have to agree with them. It wasn't until several years later when I came across a review of his series (as an increasingly straw-man argument for his Ayn Rand-ian philosophical viewpoint) and an interview he did that showcased his extreme sense of ego (as if what he was doing in the series was somehow vastly superior on an intellectual level to what other fantasists have done) that my zero interest actually turned into a negative number, and I knew I wouldn't ever bother reading any of his other books. I had zero interest in reading onward in the series. Struck me basically as a fairly standard boiler-plate epic fantasy, with the only thing that made it stand out to (sheltered, 19-year-old) me being what seemed a pretty extreme sado-masochistic streak. Zipped through the second half, and after finishing felt like I'd overindulged on some sort of junk food that was good at the time but utterly unsatisfying. I remember finding it rather slow at first but very exciting as the book progressed. I was, at the time.well, let's say not a very critical reader. I read that first book back in early college. My understanding is that it gets worse from the high point of that first book. A good story intriguing and characters can overcome some faults in the writing, but if I'm getting knocked out frequently, or if it feels like plowing through molasses to read it, I'm done. I've read other authors where I just couldn't get sucked into the story due to what seemed (to me) to be clunky prose or an awkward narrative style. I've seen other comments along these lines about his stuff, though obviously many people like it too. Maybe it's unfair to assume something won't be interesting up front just because it's incorporating cultural tropes I find "meh," but I've got a long "to read" list and only so much time.īut philosophical underpinnings of stories aside (we all have our likes and dislikes there), it sounds like you found the writing distractingly weak. Didn't care for the writing style, and recycled Nietzsche doesn't do it for me (he wasn't my favorite philosopher). I tried to read a couple of her books and couldn't get into them. Never read it, and never really wanted to after I heard it was all supposed to be a tribute to Ayn Rand. My question is.Am I way off base here? Has anyone else on the site read his work? Does it get better? Should I use the book for kindling? Thanks for any insight. There seems to be so much filler, and not even the unique beautiful descriptive filler that I like to read, but filler on eyes gazing and sudden changes in emotions of the characters that seem very had to believe.
There are so many stories I've read on this site that 'seemed' better written then this thing, as hard as that might be to believe given the authors success and the number of books he's put out. There were so many references to how the main characters "eyes" locked on to "her eyes" and how the main character just knew what the other character was thinking, as if from osmosis or from some weird POV the author took. I could not get through the first chapter of this thing. Look, I'm not published, and by standards of my favorite authors, I feel I'm not even on the map, (jeesh, I can't even punctuate dialog the right way), still, I feel I need to comment and ask some questions. I decide to pick up Wizards First Rule, the first in Terry Goodkind's epic Sword of Truth series. Okay.so I'm in Chicago on biz and go to the B&N to buy a book.
0 kommentar(er)
