23 internautes sur 27 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
- Publié sur Amazon.com
First off, I'm enjoying reading the series. I've blown through WFR and SOT, and am making progress through Blood of the Fold. I typically read to relax at the end of the day, before bed, and this series has delivered nicely for relaxation and enjoyment purposes.
I'm not new to the genre. I began with David Eddings in the early 90s, and have made my way through most of the predominant contemporary authors: Robert Jordan, George R R Martin, Raymond Feist, Tad Williams, Terry Brooks, C. S. Friedman, of course Tolkein, even Michael Moorcock, and numerous others I can't remember. Bottom line, Goodkind's stuff is somewhere in between them all. Not something I'm likely to read a second time, as I have with several other books and series, but certainly something I'll read to the end.
What I was most troubled by though was the surprising number of similiarities between Goodkind's work and Jordan's Wheel of Time series. Many themes are common throughout; not just the 'Common Man turned Reluctant Savior' theme, or the Sword and Magic battle of good versus evil. Those are staples that any reader must accept if they're going to participate in the fantasy genre.
No, I'm referring to the almost blatant commonalities between Goodkind's fantasy aspects and Jordan's content. The simplest, of course, is the dual nature of the magical forces represented in the world. Perhaps not unique, but definitely similar. On to the controlling neclaces/leashes, the Sisters of Light (who even have a hierarchy of Novice/Sister), Sisters of Dark, even the concept of The Flame and the Void, or the Oneness. There are numerous others, and each time I encounter one in Goodkind's work, I chuckle to myself a little.
However, I don't let it detract from the experience of these books. I'm reading these for enjoyment, and if there are some common themes, well, so be it. I did however, just out of curiosity, look up the first edition publication dates, and discovered that Jordan's work was published many years prior to Goodkind's. So, at least I know who put this stuff down first.
All that being said, this series is a good read, providing many hours of entertainment at a very affordable price. Probably not the series you'd want to go out and buy all hardcovers of for display, but cost effective entertainment if you go the boxed set route.
If you've got the time, enjoy the genre, and want a good read that doesn't involve a ton of brainpower, this is definitely a good pick.
59 internautes sur 74 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
- Publié sur Amazon.com
Unless you've already read the series and just want to replace your copies, don't buy this set. I made the enormous error of purchasing this set without reading any of Goodkind's novels first. I forced my way through Wizard's First Rule and realized that I wasted my money. I have no intention of ever reading Blood of the Fold or Stone of Tears.
I have very, very few positive things to say about the Wizard's First Rule. So I'll just get the positives out of the way now. Zedd is a very likable character. Not very original, certainly, but he's kooky and funny and hard not to like. The character Giller, too, is likable after a fashion.
Well, that's about all I can say thats positive about the novel. So lets get to the negatives.
1. It's poorly written. The narrative is clumsy, the dialog is repetitive and unrealistic. Not only is the language poor, but Goodkind is unable to logically construct even a simple paragraph, let alone an entire chapter. He has a habit of meandering in his paragraphs so that the first sentence of the paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with the last sentence. This would be understandable were he writing in stream of consciousness, but, alas, he is not. He also has the annoying habit of changing the perspective of the narrator from paragraph to paragraph without informing the reader, making it difficult to sort out who thinks what.
2. The characters are detestable. As I already said, Zedd and Giller are good characters. But they are minor characters. The hero, Richard, is one of the most immediately dislikable protagonists I've ever seen. He's arrogant, whiny, awkward, stupid and completely intolerant of other people and their cultures. Which leads me to my third major criticism.
3. Inconsistent character development. Goodkind frequently changes the personality of his characters to suit the chapter. In one chapter, Richard throws a tantrum because he cannot use his right hand to do something because it is against the culture of a tribe he is visiting. A chapter or two later, he willingly eats the flesh of another person because the culture dictates he must. In addition, Richard (and the other characters) range from mind-bogglingly stupid to brilliant and back something within a couple paragraphs. Goodkind makes his characters smart when he needs to in order to advance the plot, then makes them stupid when he needs to. Richard, Kahlan, Zedd, etc., all do enormously stupid things, and then are brilliant the next chapter. And its not just one character, every character is in turns brilliant and stupid. And it seems that there is always one brilliant character and several stupid characters at any given time so there is always enough intelligence to advance the plot. What's the point of having 800 pages of character development if you just throw it away to advance the plot?
4. And speaking of the plot, the story of the Wizard's First Rule is pretty poorly devised and highly predictable. There are two major secrets in the novel, the first being the identity of the Wizard (which is readily apparent within the first 15 pages of the text) and the identity of the Traitor (which is apparent as soon as it is learned that Richard was betrayed). And despite how painfully obvious who these characters are, Goodkind painstakingly devotes hundreds of pages to discovering their identities. It's terribly painful clawing your way through this book when you already know how all the big secrets and how the book is going to end within the first few chapters.
5. Plot-lifting. In a lot of ways, Wizard's First Rule is a dumbed down version of Robert Jordan's the Wheel of Time. Richard is essentially Rand Al'Thor, the Dragon Reborn, though he is purely a good character and destined only to help the world. Kahlan Amnell and the Confessors are utterly identical in every way to Jordan's Aes Sedai. The torture and training Richard endures is identical (and often down to the very wording) to the training Egwene Al'Vere endures. Darken Rahl is a very poor rip off of Shai'Tan, the Dark One (and, for that matter Darth Vader of Star Wars fame). There is very, very little of Goodkind's original thought in the Wizard's First Rule, and what original thought there is is very poor.
6. Convenient Writing. Goodkind is the King of making crap up as he goes. Due to his inability to write his way out of a wet paper bag, Goodkind is constantly having to make up new powers or abilities to get his characters out of a seemingly impossible situation. The best example for this is one scene in which Kahlan, Zedd and Chase are ambushed by Darken Rahl's minions. For whatever reason, Zedd and Chase are incapacitated and Kahlan, for some other stupid reason, can't use her powers and is being raped. Suddenly, Kahlan develops a new ability that 1. has never been mentioned before, 2. she admits that she had never been able to do before, 3. must be taught by an expert, as stipulation Kahlan never met. Yet somehow, Kahlan is able to use this power and miraculously defeats the enemy. Goodkind's writing in these situations is so bad that he flat out admits what the character just did is impossible, but goes with it anyway.
In truth, I could list another dozen or so criticisms of this book. But I doubt anyone is going to read that much. My advice: If you've never read Terry Goodkind before, read him before you blow the extra money on this set. If you're an intelligent, well-read reader, you will likely hate the series and regret spending the money, as I did. You are more likely to enjoy this book if you are a child, say 10-12 years old, or you have never read a fantasy book before. If you fit into either of these categories, the cliches will not seem so bad, and the new world of fantasy will blind you to the very poor writing and storytelling. But in either of those circumstances, I would still advise against buying the set. Make sure you like Goodkind before you drop the money for three of his books. Go to the library and read a chapter or two first. There's a very good chance that you will despise this novel like most other experienced readers.
I gave this set two stars, by the way, for the reasons listed in the previous paragraph. If you're an inexperienced reader or are new to the fantasy world, this series will work well for you. In addition, Mr. Goodkind CAN write, and can write well. The Wizard's First Rule features one or two chapters that are marvelously written. But this is an extreme exception to the rule. Perhaps the later books are better, but after Book I, I will work very hard to ensure that I never read another word of Goodkind's writing.