Order “Majestrum” HERE
Before I got into this whole blogger scene, my number one resource for discovering new authors and titles was the Science Fiction Book Club—which has been frequently mentioned—and one of the many gems that was uncovered for me was Matthew Hughes’ “Black Brillion” (2004). While I immensely enjoyed the novel, I actually didn’t think about the author again until I had started Fantasy Book Critic and learned of the two books Mr. Hughes had coming out this year—“The Spiral Labyrinth" (September 2007-Night Shade Books) and “The Commons” (October 2007-Robert J. Sawyer Books). Then, because of the September 2007 Spotlight, Matt contacted me personally and not only hooked me up with his novel “Majestrum” (2006), but also an autographed copy! So, for that I’m extremely grateful, but you should know that I’m not reviewing this book just because Matt’s a nice guy ;) He’s also a damn fine writer and if I had known just how good “Majestrum” was going to be, I would have bought the book the very day it was out!
Because there are so many reasons why I loved “Majestrum” I’m not sure where to begin, but since the novel is designated as A Tale of Henghis Hapthorn and is the first volume in an ongoing series from Mr. Hughes, I figured I would start by addressing the question, “Who is Henghis Hapthorn?” The witty reply would be that he’s “one of Old Earth’s foremost freelance discriminators”, but on a more serious note, Henghis Hapthorn is a detective modeled after the world’s most famous detective Sherlock Homes, and first appeared in six short stories that ran in the Fantasy & Science Fiction Magazine which are currently collected in Matt’s “The Gist Hunter and Other Stories” (2005). As a huge Sherlock Holmes fan, you can definitely see the resemblance between the two characters—their brilliant intellects, a somewhat bloated ego because of that intelligence, their cynical sense of humor, a flair for the theatrical, and how they both like to hold back answers until the mystery is completely solved…for Henghis, this is usually denoted by his signature phrase “It would be premature to say.” Furthermore, Matt’s writing style reminded me a bit of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s more ‘old-fashioned’ prose, albeit with greater wittiness and accessibility, though the biggest comparison I keep hearing is to Jack Vance. Since I haven’t read anything by Mr. Vance, I can’t comment, but apparently the setting is also influenced by Vance’s Dying Earth series, which sounds like something I would be interested in.
Staying on the subject of setting, that was another thing that I really liked about “Majestrum”. Genghis lives in a period aeons in the future where magic and far-fetched technology co-exist, though one area is usually predominant over the other. In this instance, science, or rationalism is ascendant and is represented by such concepts as the Ten Thousand Worlds, the Spray, the Archonate, artificial-intelligent integrators, space travel, multiple dimensions and so forth. As part of the story though, an age of magic—sympathetic association is the preferred term—is drawing near and as a result, ‘dimples’ are bleeding into the universe like demons, thaumaturges (magicians), spell books and other magical occurrences… Personally, I just loved this kind of milieu—it was the perfect blend of fantasy & science fiction and I can’t understand why more writers aren’t employing this kind of a backdrop. Then again, perhaps they are and I just haven’t read them yet, but the only books that came to mind were Eric Van Lustbader’s The Pearl saga. Of course, fans of Matthew Hughes should be familiar with the environment since the author uses the setting in many of his novels and short stories :) Anyways, the most impressive thing about the Archonate universe is how vivid and inventive it is, and major props go out to the Victorian-like capital Olkney which further emphasizes the Sherlock Holmes influence; the Derogation idea; and the amusing concept Corps of Buffoons where career criminals are forced to suffer public displays of ribald humiliation ;)
And now I come to my favorite part of the book…the story. Evidently, “Majestrum” takes place after Henghis’ short story adventures because the book opens with the discriminator dealing with two highly unorthodox problems that were caused by a recent transdimensional voyage that exposed him and his assistant to forces of magic. 1) Hapthorn’s integrator assistant has been transformed from a mechanical tool into a living, breathing creature that has developed a taste for expensive fruits and long naps; and 2) Henghis’ ‘intuition’ has ascended into a “fully formed persona” that shares the same body with the discriminator’s more rational personality. Even more outrageous is that this “alternate” Henghis Hapthorn supposedly represents the kind of person Henghis will become whenever the universe shifts back into an ‘age of magic’. Crazy huh!?! And that’s just the first few pages. The actual plot doesn’t get underway until Henghis is hired by aristocrat Lord Afre in a case to protect his daughter’s virtue. While we get to see some exotic locales as this subplot is going on, things don’t get really interesting until the Archon—the most powerful person on Old Earth—personally employs Henghis to stop a conspiracy to overthrow the Archonate. From here, the mystery only deepens as Henghis, his integrator and his alternate personality—the interaction between the three characters result in some of the most engaging discussions I’ve read in the past few years—must discover the connection between an indecipherable book of magic; a disappearing/reappearing boy; ghastly murders where the eyeballs and other body parts are missing; an ancient, destroyed civilization; and the name Majestrum; all before time runs out! There were a lot of other really cool, exciting things going on as well that I wish I could tell you about, but that would ruin the surprises ;) Suffice it to say that the book’s mystery was great, almost up to the standards of Sir Doyle though the big reveal at the end was a bit disappointing; and as a fan of fantastic sorceries and wild science fiction concepts, “Majestrum” kept me thoroughly entertained :D
Because there are so many reasons why I loved “Majestrum” I’m not sure where to begin, but since the novel is designated as A Tale of Henghis Hapthorn and is the first volume in an ongoing series from Mr. Hughes, I figured I would start by addressing the question, “Who is Henghis Hapthorn?” The witty reply would be that he’s “one of Old Earth’s foremost freelance discriminators”, but on a more serious note, Henghis Hapthorn is a detective modeled after the world’s most famous detective Sherlock Homes, and first appeared in six short stories that ran in the Fantasy & Science Fiction Magazine which are currently collected in Matt’s “The Gist Hunter and Other Stories” (2005). As a huge Sherlock Holmes fan, you can definitely see the resemblance between the two characters—their brilliant intellects, a somewhat bloated ego because of that intelligence, their cynical sense of humor, a flair for the theatrical, and how they both like to hold back answers until the mystery is completely solved…for Henghis, this is usually denoted by his signature phrase “It would be premature to say.” Furthermore, Matt’s writing style reminded me a bit of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s more ‘old-fashioned’ prose, albeit with greater wittiness and accessibility, though the biggest comparison I keep hearing is to Jack Vance. Since I haven’t read anything by Mr. Vance, I can’t comment, but apparently the setting is also influenced by Vance’s Dying Earth series, which sounds like something I would be interested in.
Staying on the subject of setting, that was another thing that I really liked about “Majestrum”. Genghis lives in a period aeons in the future where magic and far-fetched technology co-exist, though one area is usually predominant over the other. In this instance, science, or rationalism is ascendant and is represented by such concepts as the Ten Thousand Worlds, the Spray, the Archonate, artificial-intelligent integrators, space travel, multiple dimensions and so forth. As part of the story though, an age of magic—sympathetic association is the preferred term—is drawing near and as a result, ‘dimples’ are bleeding into the universe like demons, thaumaturges (magicians), spell books and other magical occurrences… Personally, I just loved this kind of milieu—it was the perfect blend of fantasy & science fiction and I can’t understand why more writers aren’t employing this kind of a backdrop. Then again, perhaps they are and I just haven’t read them yet, but the only books that came to mind were Eric Van Lustbader’s The Pearl saga. Of course, fans of Matthew Hughes should be familiar with the environment since the author uses the setting in many of his novels and short stories :) Anyways, the most impressive thing about the Archonate universe is how vivid and inventive it is, and major props go out to the Victorian-like capital Olkney which further emphasizes the Sherlock Holmes influence; the Derogation idea; and the amusing concept Corps of Buffoons where career criminals are forced to suffer public displays of ribald humiliation ;)
And now I come to my favorite part of the book…the story. Evidently, “Majestrum” takes place after Henghis’ short story adventures because the book opens with the discriminator dealing with two highly unorthodox problems that were caused by a recent transdimensional voyage that exposed him and his assistant to forces of magic. 1) Hapthorn’s integrator assistant has been transformed from a mechanical tool into a living, breathing creature that has developed a taste for expensive fruits and long naps; and 2) Henghis’ ‘intuition’ has ascended into a “fully formed persona” that shares the same body with the discriminator’s more rational personality. Even more outrageous is that this “alternate” Henghis Hapthorn supposedly represents the kind of person Henghis will become whenever the universe shifts back into an ‘age of magic’. Crazy huh!?! And that’s just the first few pages. The actual plot doesn’t get underway until Henghis is hired by aristocrat Lord Afre in a case to protect his daughter’s virtue. While we get to see some exotic locales as this subplot is going on, things don’t get really interesting until the Archon—the most powerful person on Old Earth—personally employs Henghis to stop a conspiracy to overthrow the Archonate. From here, the mystery only deepens as Henghis, his integrator and his alternate personality—the interaction between the three characters result in some of the most engaging discussions I’ve read in the past few years—must discover the connection between an indecipherable book of magic; a disappearing/reappearing boy; ghastly murders where the eyeballs and other body parts are missing; an ancient, destroyed civilization; and the name Majestrum; all before time runs out! There were a lot of other really cool, exciting things going on as well that I wish I could tell you about, but that would ruin the surprises ;) Suffice it to say that the book’s mystery was great, almost up to the standards of Sir Doyle though the big reveal at the end was a bit disappointing; and as a fan of fantastic sorceries and wild science fiction concepts, “Majestrum” kept me thoroughly entertained :D
It seems lately with every book I’m reading, I’m developing a new favorite. Seriously, if “Majestrum” hadn’t been released last year, it would easily be at or very near the top of my list for 2007. As it is, “Majestrum” will still be one of my favorite books of the year and there’s been quite a few of them to choose from :) In fact, I’m a bit shocked that Matthew Hughes isn’t signed to a major publisher. That’s not a knock against Night Shade Books because they do a wonderful job of continuously putting out high-quality titles, but “Majestrum” is just that good. Perhaps it has something to do with the Dying Earth comparisons, which is the only drawback I could see, but honestly I don’t know. All I do know for certain is that Matthew Hughes is a special talent that deserves a much larger audience and that “Majestrum” is a pretty good starting point, especially with one sequel (The Spiral Labyrinth) already available and “Hespira” coming out next year…
9:02 AM | 
Posted by
Robert |
Official I Am Legend Movie Website
Robert races home, fighting off the vampires waiting for him around his house, and manages to get inside—but not before realizing that he has left the garage door open, a garage that holds his generator, his only source of electricity. Without electricity, his food will spoil, which would lead to his end.
Like any human, Robert Neville has needs. All the women in the world are dead, and it has been some time since Robert has had relations, has had his base urges satisfied. The female vampires play to his needs, prostrating themselves, moaning, calling out for him. Sure, willingly going out at night is a death wish at best, but what about the corpses? Could he actually tolerate relieving himself in them? Is that wrong?
The reader's journey alongside Robert Neville is intense, satisfying, and intensely satisfying—all the way until the very end, at which point Matheson seems to take an easy way out. Due to the abruptness of the conclusion, the reader is left wanting more, which in this case, is not meant in a positive light. Robert's journey seems unfinished, lacking in some way, and that is where the film edition could hopefully fix what is certainly broken.
Despite a disappointing ending, “I Am Legend” is still a fantastic, timeless story of horror and survival. Because it is being billed as a horror movie, bookworms interested in the movie are advised to read—or re-read—Richard Matheson's classic novel before venturing to theaters, sitting through a couple hours of doubtlessly poor translation, and declaring to a troupe of friends that "The book was better" as the party makes their way back to the car.
The book will always be better, but with any luck, the ending of the movie will leave viewers with more satisfaction.
“I Am Legend” by Richard Matheson
Reviewed By: David Craddock
“I Am Legend” might be one of the most frustrating survival stories ever written. Here we have a man, Robert Neville, who is not marooned on an island, nor is he buried in a tunnel, nor is he stuck in any of the typical places people tend to get stuck—Robert is stranded in New York City. Every day he wakes up, listens to music, has more than his fair share of alcoholic beverages, runs a variety of errands, and gathers food before settling in for the evening. He does not settle in because he is tired and has to get up for work the next morning, nor because he would like to relax and do a bit of reading before heading off to bed, nor for any of the reasons a normal person decides to turn in.
Robert Neville goes home at night and locks doors, barricades windows, and nestles a pistol in his lap because he has to. Because at dusk, they emerge. From their homes; from a stranger's basement; climbing out of the freezer; maybe even from a chimney. At dusk, the vampires surface and gather in their own town square, their own common meeting place—all around Robert Neville's house. All through the night does Robert sit, his hand shaking, drops of drink spilling from the glass held in his fingers. All through the night do they scratch at his door, claw at his windows, and call him, beg him to come out. When the sun begins to rise, they scramble back under their porches, into their freezers, into all their hiding places, so that they can rest for the coming night, when maybe, just maybe, their goal, the only goal their minds are now capable of producing, will be realized—bathing in Robert Neville's blood.
Poor Robert Neville: an entire city at his disposal, and yet he is truly unable to leave his house for fear of what darkness brings. To twist a phrase, a man's home is not his castle; in Robert Neville's case, his home is his island, and for all intents and purposes, he is stuck there without any hope of being saved.
“I Am Legend” is the classic horror story written by revered author Richard Matheson. Additionally, it is also Hollywood's most recent attempt at butchering literature, a slaughter which begins on December 14, 2007. Will the movie be any good? Maybe. There is no doubt that Matheson's classic novel will stand the test of time regardless of how it fares on screen, but it is possible that the silver screen adaptation will triumph in the one area where “I Am Legend” disappoints: its conclusion.
After a terrible disease sweeps through the world, Robert Neville finds himself the seemingly sole survivor. Every day he wakes up, hunts and gathers food—marketplace freezers have long since ceased operating—drinks, reads, and listens to music. Sometimes, he even decorates his home, but not in the way you or I do. Instead of window chimes, Robert hangs garlic. Rather than hang a dream catcher above his bed for protection, Robert prefers to cuddle up with a variety of firearms.
Over the course of Matheson's inarguably short novel, Robert Neville is endeared to us for many reasons, but each and every one of them trace back to one core trait: he is human. Over the course of every single day, Robert wakes up and wonders why. Why get out of bed? Why continue to straighten the house, as if friends will be stopping over to socialize? Why get his hopes up that he will one day encounter a survivor, another human or beast that, for whatever reason, was able to survive the plague? Why put a stop to his new affinity for booze when his wife and daughter are no longer alive to steer him back onto the wagon?
There is no hope, there is no cure. What does Robert Neville have to look forward to? Death, just like everyone else; but unlike ordinary humans, Robert Neville will most likely perish violently, shredded and eaten at the hands of the nightwalkers.
Through Robert Neville, Matheson poses pertinent questions that never fail to give the reader pause. Who among us could be strong enough to willingly carry the bodies of our loved ones to a communal fire pit, where they are subsequently burned to avoid spreading the infection? Not Robert, who chooses to stash his wife's body in the backseat of his car and bury her in a distant field—a decision he comes to regret late one night.
Robert's humanity is expertly shown when he does, as expected, encounter another survivor—a dog, the first truly living creature Robert sees in days—no, weeks... months... years...? In the end, it doesn't seem to matter. Time has no meaning without appointments and meetings to keep. Every morning, Robert sets a bowl of food in his yard and sits on his porch, far enough to not alarm the dog when it appears to eat. For days—weeks? months?—Robert feeds the dog in exchange for a brief visit, contact with another living, breathing creature. When he sees the dog shamble across the street and dip its head to eat from its food bowl, Robert experiences excitement; when the dog finishes eating, it looks at him briefly, as if in silent thanks, before crossing the street and returning to its hiding place—and Robert experiences disappointment, sadness, loneliness.
Later on, Robert encounters a woman stumbling through a field, absently walking without anywhere to go. He runs at her, scaring her, and gives chase, eager to finally have human contact that doesn't involve leaving teeth marks. And yet, when Robert finally catches up with her, he is cold, callous, untrusting. Why? Because he has forgotten how to treat another human being. He's been by himself for so long that his yearning for human contact has been smothered by his uncertainty at sharing his living quarters with another person—a living quarters that he sometimes treasures, and sometimes loathes.
Like any human, Robert Neville takes stupid risks. He ventures farther than he intends one day and realizes too late that his watch has died, stuck at 3:00 P.M. when he believes that it must be closer to 5:30. Of course, the day is a cloudy, overcast one, and thus it is difficult to gauge time.
Reviewed By: David Craddock
“I Am Legend” might be one of the most frustrating survival stories ever written. Here we have a man, Robert Neville, who is not marooned on an island, nor is he buried in a tunnel, nor is he stuck in any of the typical places people tend to get stuck—Robert is stranded in New York City. Every day he wakes up, listens to music, has more than his fair share of alcoholic beverages, runs a variety of errands, and gathers food before settling in for the evening. He does not settle in because he is tired and has to get up for work the next morning, nor because he would like to relax and do a bit of reading before heading off to bed, nor for any of the reasons a normal person decides to turn in.
Robert Neville goes home at night and locks doors, barricades windows, and nestles a pistol in his lap because he has to. Because at dusk, they emerge. From their homes; from a stranger's basement; climbing out of the freezer; maybe even from a chimney. At dusk, the vampires surface and gather in their own town square, their own common meeting place—all around Robert Neville's house. All through the night does Robert sit, his hand shaking, drops of drink spilling from the glass held in his fingers. All through the night do they scratch at his door, claw at his windows, and call him, beg him to come out. When the sun begins to rise, they scramble back under their porches, into their freezers, into all their hiding places, so that they can rest for the coming night, when maybe, just maybe, their goal, the only goal their minds are now capable of producing, will be realized—bathing in Robert Neville's blood.
Poor Robert Neville: an entire city at his disposal, and yet he is truly unable to leave his house for fear of what darkness brings. To twist a phrase, a man's home is not his castle; in Robert Neville's case, his home is his island, and for all intents and purposes, he is stuck there without any hope of being saved.
“I Am Legend” is the classic horror story written by revered author Richard Matheson. Additionally, it is also Hollywood's most recent attempt at butchering literature, a slaughter which begins on December 14, 2007. Will the movie be any good? Maybe. There is no doubt that Matheson's classic novel will stand the test of time regardless of how it fares on screen, but it is possible that the silver screen adaptation will triumph in the one area where “I Am Legend” disappoints: its conclusion.
After a terrible disease sweeps through the world, Robert Neville finds himself the seemingly sole survivor. Every day he wakes up, hunts and gathers food—marketplace freezers have long since ceased operating—drinks, reads, and listens to music. Sometimes, he even decorates his home, but not in the way you or I do. Instead of window chimes, Robert hangs garlic. Rather than hang a dream catcher above his bed for protection, Robert prefers to cuddle up with a variety of firearms.Over the course of Matheson's inarguably short novel, Robert Neville is endeared to us for many reasons, but each and every one of them trace back to one core trait: he is human. Over the course of every single day, Robert wakes up and wonders why. Why get out of bed? Why continue to straighten the house, as if friends will be stopping over to socialize? Why get his hopes up that he will one day encounter a survivor, another human or beast that, for whatever reason, was able to survive the plague? Why put a stop to his new affinity for booze when his wife and daughter are no longer alive to steer him back onto the wagon?
There is no hope, there is no cure. What does Robert Neville have to look forward to? Death, just like everyone else; but unlike ordinary humans, Robert Neville will most likely perish violently, shredded and eaten at the hands of the nightwalkers.
Through Robert Neville, Matheson poses pertinent questions that never fail to give the reader pause. Who among us could be strong enough to willingly carry the bodies of our loved ones to a communal fire pit, where they are subsequently burned to avoid spreading the infection? Not Robert, who chooses to stash his wife's body in the backseat of his car and bury her in a distant field—a decision he comes to regret late one night.
Robert's humanity is expertly shown when he does, as expected, encounter another survivor—a dog, the first truly living creature Robert sees in days—no, weeks... months... years...? In the end, it doesn't seem to matter. Time has no meaning without appointments and meetings to keep. Every morning, Robert sets a bowl of food in his yard and sits on his porch, far enough to not alarm the dog when it appears to eat. For days—weeks? months?—Robert feeds the dog in exchange for a brief visit, contact with another living, breathing creature. When he sees the dog shamble across the street and dip its head to eat from its food bowl, Robert experiences excitement; when the dog finishes eating, it looks at him briefly, as if in silent thanks, before crossing the street and returning to its hiding place—and Robert experiences disappointment, sadness, loneliness.
Later on, Robert encounters a woman stumbling through a field, absently walking without anywhere to go. He runs at her, scaring her, and gives chase, eager to finally have human contact that doesn't involve leaving teeth marks. And yet, when Robert finally catches up with her, he is cold, callous, untrusting. Why? Because he has forgotten how to treat another human being. He's been by himself for so long that his yearning for human contact has been smothered by his uncertainty at sharing his living quarters with another person—a living quarters that he sometimes treasures, and sometimes loathes.
Like any human, Robert Neville takes stupid risks. He ventures farther than he intends one day and realizes too late that his watch has died, stuck at 3:00 P.M. when he believes that it must be closer to 5:30. Of course, the day is a cloudy, overcast one, and thus it is difficult to gauge time.
Robert races home, fighting off the vampires waiting for him around his house, and manages to get inside—but not before realizing that he has left the garage door open, a garage that holds his generator, his only source of electricity. Without electricity, his food will spoil, which would lead to his end.
Like any human, Robert Neville has needs. All the women in the world are dead, and it has been some time since Robert has had relations, has had his base urges satisfied. The female vampires play to his needs, prostrating themselves, moaning, calling out for him. Sure, willingly going out at night is a death wish at best, but what about the corpses? Could he actually tolerate relieving himself in them? Is that wrong?
The reader's journey alongside Robert Neville is intense, satisfying, and intensely satisfying—all the way until the very end, at which point Matheson seems to take an easy way out. Due to the abruptness of the conclusion, the reader is left wanting more, which in this case, is not meant in a positive light. Robert's journey seems unfinished, lacking in some way, and that is where the film edition could hopefully fix what is certainly broken.
Despite a disappointing ending, “I Am Legend” is still a fantastic, timeless story of horror and survival. Because it is being billed as a horror movie, bookworms interested in the movie are advised to read—or re-read—Richard Matheson's classic novel before venturing to theaters, sitting through a couple hours of doubtlessly poor translation, and declaring to a troupe of friends that "The book was better" as the party makes their way back to the car.
The book will always be better, but with any luck, the ending of the movie will leave viewers with more satisfaction.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Terry Pratchett news and a GIVEAWAY for Kevin J. Anderson's the Saga of Seven Suns
Thanks to Pat’s Fantasy Hotlist, I recently came across the sad news that Terry Pratchett, author of the popular Discworld novels, has been diagnosed with a rare form of Alzheimer's. You can check out Terry’s official statement via Paul Kidby’s website HERE. As distressing as the news is, I can’t help but be impressed with Mr. Pratchett’s attitude and I wish him and his family the best as he fights this disease and continues doing what he loves…
In lighter news, Orbit Books is giving away a whole SET of Kevin J. Anderson’s The Saga of Seven Suns (Volumes One through Six) in promotion of the author’s recently released “Metal Swarm” (Book Six)!!! All you have to do is be a subscriber to Hachette Book Group’s newsletter—Sign up HERE if you’re not—and email orbit@hbgusa.com with the words “The Saga of Seven Suns” in the subject line. A winner will be randomly chosen from eligible entries on December 17th.
In lighter news, Orbit Books is giving away a whole SET of Kevin J. Anderson’s The Saga of Seven Suns (Volumes One through Six) in promotion of the author’s recently released “Metal Swarm” (Book Six)!!! All you have to do is be a subscriber to Hachette Book Group’s newsletter—Sign up HERE if you’re not—and email orbit@hbgusa.com with the words “The Saga of Seven Suns” in the subject line. A winner will be randomly chosen from eligible entries on December 17th.
Order “The Sword-Edged Blonde” HERE
I don’t know if it’s like this with anyone else, but every once in a while I can just look at a book cover and know that I’m going to like it. That was the case when I first set eyes on “The Sword-Edged Blonde” by Alex Bledsoe, a first-time novelist with over fifty published short stories. Justin Sweet’s artwork immediately brought to mind the pulpy magic of Robert E. Howard’s wonderful Conan adventures and Frank Frazetta’s stellar paintings, and I just knew that I had to read the book. And then, when I heard the novel blended traditional sword-and-sorcery fantasy elements with the 1930s/40s-era detective novels of Raymond Chandler & Dashiell Hammett, I couldn’t get a copy fast enough. Granted, I’ve never actually read any Chandler or Hammett, but I’ve always loved a good mystery—Sherlock Holmes is a favorite of mine; and have enjoyed it when crime noir is mixed with other genres like science fiction.
Of course, there has to be more to a book than just a snazzy nostalgic cover and a cool concept. After all, it’s not like “The Sword-Edged Blonde” is the first novel to have ever brought together two such disparate worlds as fantasy and mystery. Fortunately, the book ‘brings its A-game’ in the other areas as well. For one, even though “The Sword-Edged Blonde” is considered Mr. Bledsoe’s debut, the writing in the book was extremely impressive—great pacing, strong characterization, an excellent mix of humor & charm, witty dialogue… I guess all of that short fiction experience really paid off! Secondly, the story is just a fun tribute to both the classic whodunit tale and the hero quest. In a nutshell, you have Eddie LaCrosse, a private investigator who’s been hired to find a runaway princess. What should be a fairly simple job becomes unexpectedly complicated when in the middle of taking care of business Eddie gets a request from his old pal King Philip to solve the murder of his infant son. Things go from bad to worse when the accused turns out to be a face from Eddie’s past that he thought was long dead. From there, the private eye goes on an epic journey searching out clues and reliving memories in an attempt to solve the case, save some lives, and maybe even redeem himself along the way… So that’s the basic setup. At the heart of the book is an engaging little mystery that is pretty easy to figure out once all of the facts are laid bare, but “The Sword-Edged Blonde” is also about Eddie—who he was, how he became the person he is today, and painful lessons about love and faith…
As far as the mixing of the two genres, Alex comes up with a pretty good formula I thought. From a presentation standpoint, “The Sword-Edged Blonde” is essentially a detective novel. I mean Eddie the main character is a private investigator; the book is told in the first-person, usually in a sarcastic, comic manner common within the genre; flashbacks are liberally used to revisit Eddie’s past; and I’ve already talked about the mystery which takes up the bulk of the story. Where the fantasy elements come into play are the time period and setting. Basically, it’s a land of kings and queens, castles, swords instead of guns, horses instead of cars, and a dash of the unexplainable like horse goddesses, magic birds and immortal dwarves… The one thing that threw me though was how contemporary the world was—law enforcement, the military, school systems, courier service, commerce, peoples’ names (Eddie, Phil, Cathy, Andrew, Stan), the use of minutes, the lingo…it was like being in the present time or the not too long ago past. Heck, Eddie even says “cool dude” in the book! Once you get past this little quirk though, it’s pretty easy to get caught up in just how much fun it is to read the book. In fact, aside from a little swearing, a smidgen of sex and a couple of really brutal scenes, “The Sword-Edged Blonde” is practically family-friendly fare, though in more of a pulp magazine manner, including how conveniently the mystery was solved and Eddie’s happy little ending ;)
Of course, there has to be more to a book than just a snazzy nostalgic cover and a cool concept. After all, it’s not like “The Sword-Edged Blonde” is the first novel to have ever brought together two such disparate worlds as fantasy and mystery. Fortunately, the book ‘brings its A-game’ in the other areas as well. For one, even though “The Sword-Edged Blonde” is considered Mr. Bledsoe’s debut, the writing in the book was extremely impressive—great pacing, strong characterization, an excellent mix of humor & charm, witty dialogue… I guess all of that short fiction experience really paid off! Secondly, the story is just a fun tribute to both the classic whodunit tale and the hero quest. In a nutshell, you have Eddie LaCrosse, a private investigator who’s been hired to find a runaway princess. What should be a fairly simple job becomes unexpectedly complicated when in the middle of taking care of business Eddie gets a request from his old pal King Philip to solve the murder of his infant son. Things go from bad to worse when the accused turns out to be a face from Eddie’s past that he thought was long dead. From there, the private eye goes on an epic journey searching out clues and reliving memories in an attempt to solve the case, save some lives, and maybe even redeem himself along the way… So that’s the basic setup. At the heart of the book is an engaging little mystery that is pretty easy to figure out once all of the facts are laid bare, but “The Sword-Edged Blonde” is also about Eddie—who he was, how he became the person he is today, and painful lessons about love and faith…
As far as the mixing of the two genres, Alex comes up with a pretty good formula I thought. From a presentation standpoint, “The Sword-Edged Blonde” is essentially a detective novel. I mean Eddie the main character is a private investigator; the book is told in the first-person, usually in a sarcastic, comic manner common within the genre; flashbacks are liberally used to revisit Eddie’s past; and I’ve already talked about the mystery which takes up the bulk of the story. Where the fantasy elements come into play are the time period and setting. Basically, it’s a land of kings and queens, castles, swords instead of guns, horses instead of cars, and a dash of the unexplainable like horse goddesses, magic birds and immortal dwarves… The one thing that threw me though was how contemporary the world was—law enforcement, the military, school systems, courier service, commerce, peoples’ names (Eddie, Phil, Cathy, Andrew, Stan), the use of minutes, the lingo…it was like being in the present time or the not too long ago past. Heck, Eddie even says “cool dude” in the book! Once you get past this little quirk though, it’s pretty easy to get caught up in just how much fun it is to read the book. In fact, aside from a little swearing, a smidgen of sex and a couple of really brutal scenes, “The Sword-Edged Blonde” is practically family-friendly fare, though in more of a pulp magazine manner, including how conveniently the mystery was solved and Eddie’s happy little ending ;)
For those that do end up enjoying the book, the good news is that this is just the beginning for Eddie LaCrosse with the detective's next mystery adventure “Burn Me, Deadly” tentatively set for release next October. And if Alex Bledsoe can kick it up a notch or two, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if major publishers come around knocking…
In the end, what can I say—the sweet cover art reeled me in; the concept, Eddie’s charming personality, Alex’s surprisingly strong writing, and an all around fun story kept me glued to the pages; and I ended up loving “The Sword-Edged Blonde” every bit as much as I thought I would :) Definitely another favorite added to the list...
“Shadowbred” by Paul S. Kemp
Reviewed By: David Craddock
It is interesting to study what religion can do to two different individuals. One might be inclined to help shelter, clothe, and feed the homeless, all in the name of his god. The other might decide to hijack a plane filled with hundreds of hostages and fly them into a building, and why? In the name of his god. Truly, what's in a name? God, Allah, Ishvara, Deus, Theos—all the same name, all the same entity, yet our two individuals seem to have completely different ideas as to the goals their gods wish for them to achieve.
In “Shadowbred”, the first book in The Twilight War trilogy, author Paul S. Kemp has created a unique cast of compelling characters that are all in some way driven by dedication to a god or religious practice. It is through his diverse roster—and their different practices—that Kemp elevates himself above many popular writers saturating the market.
Rivalen is a shade, one with the ability to travel through shadows to any destination of his choosing. More importantly, Rivalen is a priest with almost direct access to Shar, the Lady of Loss. Though it might seem that a goddess who specializes in matters of loss and abject misery is not indicative of a friendly priest, Rivalen often displays surprising amounts of mercy and compassion. Early in the book, he is hesitant to risk the lives of his servants who are out at sea with him, searching for a mysterious relic. Seemingly out of character for one dedicated to melancholy.
Elyril, a young woman who uses her aunt as a marionette so that she might manifest both her political ambitions and the will of her goddess, is downright mad. For all of you eligible bachelors out there, Elyril's hobbies include snorting a seemingly endless supply of "minddust", devouring the shadows of servants—which subsequently kills them—and plotting the downfall of a land through civil war. Her goddess: Shar, the Lady of Loss. Her ally: Rivalen, trusted priest of the Lady herself. Two different characters, but vastly different tactics are used to accomplish aligning goals.
Thirdly, we have Erevis Cale who, like Rivalen, is a shade. Though Erevis does not serve the Lady of Loss, he does serve a shadow god by the name of Mask. "Cale" has quite a shady past—pun intended—but resolved to "be a hero" at the deathbed request of his hobbit friend, Jak. Because of the acts he perpetrated in his past, Cale had rejected his god, but over the course of “Shadowbred”, reluctantly finds his way back, and finds that he can apply different principles and actions—ones more in line with those his hobbit friend would have approved of—to achieve Mask's goals.
Though “Shadowbred's” roster is far larger, I call your attention to Cale, Rivalen, and Elyril so as to point out the beautifully deep tale Kemp has weaved with those three. Each has a similar religious background, with two serving the same goddess. Two of them rely on similar abilities, and all three come from pasts filled with the blackest darkness. And yet, Kemp has shown that even with their common traits, the pretext of religion can result in three very different lives, all of which beget very different consequences and rewards.
Elyril uses insanity, murder, and politics to realize the will of Lady of Loss, while Rivalen is infinitely more complex, and throughout most of the story, his character plagued me with a well-crafted ambiguity. During most of “Shadowbred”, the reader will constantly point to a direct result of Rivalen's machinations and say, "That's proof: he must be evil." But then the character will do something else a bit out of a context that was only slightly established. Rest assured that Rivalen's intentions will be overtly known by the end of the book, but I had a great deal of fun examining Rivalen's many twists and turns.
Though he initially seems to be the main character, Cale disappears for quite some time after the book's prologue, leaving Kemp with ample time to establish that the role of protagonist is a mask that will be worn by many. Once he returns to take a leading role, Cale's journey back to his god and former life becomes equally as interesting as Rivalen's pseudo-genteel scheming. Cale's past is revealed bit by bit, leaving the reader with a good understanding of the shade's motivations and desires, yet not so good that devouring the next installment in The Twilight War, “Shadowstorm”, is not thought of without anticipation at learning even more of the character's shadowy—pun again intended—past.
All authors have at least one chink in their proverbial armor, and Paul S. Kemp is no exception. The use of large streams of exposition is like a racecar ready to surge forward, yet stuck spinning its tires on a thick, steep patch of ice. For the most part, “Shadowbred” is well-written, with a quick and powerful prose that paves a smooth, enjoyable road for our aforementioned car. Approximately one quarter of the way through the story, Kemp lightens up on the ill-placed exposition and allows readers the joy of flicking on cruise control, leaning the seat back, and enjoying the ride.
Reviewed By: David Craddock
It is interesting to study what religion can do to two different individuals. One might be inclined to help shelter, clothe, and feed the homeless, all in the name of his god. The other might decide to hijack a plane filled with hundreds of hostages and fly them into a building, and why? In the name of his god. Truly, what's in a name? God, Allah, Ishvara, Deus, Theos—all the same name, all the same entity, yet our two individuals seem to have completely different ideas as to the goals their gods wish for them to achieve.
In “Shadowbred”, the first book in The Twilight War trilogy, author Paul S. Kemp has created a unique cast of compelling characters that are all in some way driven by dedication to a god or religious practice. It is through his diverse roster—and their different practices—that Kemp elevates himself above many popular writers saturating the market.
Rivalen is a shade, one with the ability to travel through shadows to any destination of his choosing. More importantly, Rivalen is a priest with almost direct access to Shar, the Lady of Loss. Though it might seem that a goddess who specializes in matters of loss and abject misery is not indicative of a friendly priest, Rivalen often displays surprising amounts of mercy and compassion. Early in the book, he is hesitant to risk the lives of his servants who are out at sea with him, searching for a mysterious relic. Seemingly out of character for one dedicated to melancholy.
Elyril, a young woman who uses her aunt as a marionette so that she might manifest both her political ambitions and the will of her goddess, is downright mad. For all of you eligible bachelors out there, Elyril's hobbies include snorting a seemingly endless supply of "minddust", devouring the shadows of servants—which subsequently kills them—and plotting the downfall of a land through civil war. Her goddess: Shar, the Lady of Loss. Her ally: Rivalen, trusted priest of the Lady herself. Two different characters, but vastly different tactics are used to accomplish aligning goals.
Thirdly, we have Erevis Cale who, like Rivalen, is a shade. Though Erevis does not serve the Lady of Loss, he does serve a shadow god by the name of Mask. "Cale" has quite a shady past—pun intended—but resolved to "be a hero" at the deathbed request of his hobbit friend, Jak. Because of the acts he perpetrated in his past, Cale had rejected his god, but over the course of “Shadowbred”, reluctantly finds his way back, and finds that he can apply different principles and actions—ones more in line with those his hobbit friend would have approved of—to achieve Mask's goals.
Though “Shadowbred's” roster is far larger, I call your attention to Cale, Rivalen, and Elyril so as to point out the beautifully deep tale Kemp has weaved with those three. Each has a similar religious background, with two serving the same goddess. Two of them rely on similar abilities, and all three come from pasts filled with the blackest darkness. And yet, Kemp has shown that even with their common traits, the pretext of religion can result in three very different lives, all of which beget very different consequences and rewards.
Elyril uses insanity, murder, and politics to realize the will of Lady of Loss, while Rivalen is infinitely more complex, and throughout most of the story, his character plagued me with a well-crafted ambiguity. During most of “Shadowbred”, the reader will constantly point to a direct result of Rivalen's machinations and say, "That's proof: he must be evil." But then the character will do something else a bit out of a context that was only slightly established. Rest assured that Rivalen's intentions will be overtly known by the end of the book, but I had a great deal of fun examining Rivalen's many twists and turns.
Though he initially seems to be the main character, Cale disappears for quite some time after the book's prologue, leaving Kemp with ample time to establish that the role of protagonist is a mask that will be worn by many. Once he returns to take a leading role, Cale's journey back to his god and former life becomes equally as interesting as Rivalen's pseudo-genteel scheming. Cale's past is revealed bit by bit, leaving the reader with a good understanding of the shade's motivations and desires, yet not so good that devouring the next installment in The Twilight War, “Shadowstorm”, is not thought of without anticipation at learning even more of the character's shadowy—pun again intended—past.
All authors have at least one chink in their proverbial armor, and Paul S. Kemp is no exception. The use of large streams of exposition is like a racecar ready to surge forward, yet stuck spinning its tires on a thick, steep patch of ice. For the most part, “Shadowbred” is well-written, with a quick and powerful prose that paves a smooth, enjoyable road for our aforementioned car. Approximately one quarter of the way through the story, Kemp lightens up on the ill-placed exposition and allows readers the joy of flicking on cruise control, leaning the seat back, and enjoying the ride.
There is no reason to overlook “Shadowbred”. Its sequel, “Shadowstorm”, is also available in stores, and the concluding installment, “Shadowrealm”, will be available in May 2008. Paul S. Kemp has woven an almost immaculate story of conspiracy, political intrigue, and the answer to what can happen between two different people who share similar beliefs.
Tor Books forms a new Manga imprint with Seven Seas + Del Rey Manga forms an alliance with Marvel Comics!!!
Just a couple of tidbits that I overlooked recently, both having to do with the continuing trend of publishers getting involved in the comic book/manga game. The first is Tor Books partnering with Seven Seas in a new Manga imprint. The first title to be published under the new venture in August 2008 is “Afro Samurai”, which was the basis for the Spike TV anime series that featured the voices of Samuel L. Jackson, Ron Perlman, and Kelly Hu, and was a personal favorite of mine :) For more information on the partnership and the “Afro Samurai” manga, read the full press release HERE.
The other big news concerns Del Rey and Marvel who have entered into a relationship to produce an Original English language manga starring Wolverine and the X-Men. I came across this via Newsarama who just posted an interview with Marvel’s Vice President of Development Ruwan Jayatilleke about the deal HERE, while also providing some artwork. The full press release can be found HERE.
To be honest, I’m not really that excited about either announcement. I’ve never been a fan of the manga style, and I’m not that big on Wolverine or X-Men, but I do think it’s an exciting step forward, especially for Tor. Who knows, maybe they’ll get into graphic novels next…
The other big news concerns Del Rey and Marvel who have entered into a relationship to produce an Original English language manga starring Wolverine and the X-Men. I came across this via Newsarama who just posted an interview with Marvel’s Vice President of Development Ruwan Jayatilleke about the deal HERE, while also providing some artwork. The full press release can be found HERE.
To be honest, I’m not really that excited about either announcement. I’ve never been a fan of the manga style, and I’m not that big on Wolverine or X-Men, but I do think it’s an exciting step forward, especially for Tor. Who knows, maybe they’ll get into graphic novels next…
Monday, December 10, 2007
Brandon Sanderson chosen to complete Robert Jordan's A Memory of Light; Winners of the Shooting War giveaway!; The Children of Húrin Limited Edition!
On Friday, December 7, 2007, Tor Books announced that novelist Brandon Sanderson had been chosen to finish the final novel in Robert Jordan's bestselling Wheel of Time fantasy series. Robert Jordan, one of the greatest storytellers of the 20th and early 21st centuries, died September 16th after a courageous battle with the rare blood disease amyloidosis.
The new novel, “A Memory of Light”, will be the twelfth and final book in the beloved fantasy series which has sold over 14 million copies in North America and over 30 million copies worldwide. The last four books in the series were all #1 New York Times bestsellers, and for over a decade fans have been eagerly awaiting the final novel that would bring the epic story to its conclusion.
Harriet Popham Rigney, Jordan's beloved wife and editor, said of her decision to have Sanderson complete the last book in The Wheel of Time series: "I have chosen Brandon Sanderson to complete Robert Jordan's great work, and I am absolutely delighted that he accepted. I will of course be editing this book as I have all of the other books of The Wheel of Time."
President and Publisher of Tor Books, Tom Doherty, also expressed his happiness with Harriet's decision, saying: "I am delighted that Harriet has chosen Brandon to complete Robert Jordan's magnificent and timeless epic."
It is the perfect match for Sanderson, who gratefully acknowledges the role Jordan played as an inspiration to him as a writer. In the tribute piece "Goodbye Mr. Jordan," posted on his blog, Sanderson writes to Jordan: "Personally, I feel indebted to you. You showed me what it was to have vision and scope in a fantasy series—you showed me what could be done. I still believe that without your success, many younger authors like myself would never have had a chance at publishing their dreams. You go quietly, but leave us trembling."
Like Jordan, Sanderson was an avid reader and writer from an early age. His debut novel, “Elantris”, was an unagented gem discovered after Sanderson, then a college student writing during his late night shift at a local hotel, approached Tor editor Moshe Feder at a fantasy convention. Several months later, after reading the manuscript and deciding he had to have it, Feder tried to find the author, who had since moved. Using the internet, he tracked down Sanderson through a campus directory—and the rest is history.
Sanderson has since gone on to establish a loyal fan base as the author of three critically acclaimed fantasy novels: “Elantris”, “Mistborn”, and “The Well of Ascension”, as well as a YA novel, “Alcatraz Versus the Evil Librarians”. Publishing trade magazines Publishers Weekly and Library Journal gave “Elantris” starred reviews and it was the winner of the Romantic Times Award for Best Epic Fantasy. The Washington Post also praised Sanderson for his creation of "a fascinating world" in “Mistborn”.
Sanderson will have large shoes to fill in his role bringing “A Memory of Light” to publication but will work very closely with Jordan's longtime editor, Harriet Rigney, to be sure that the writing stays true to Jordan's voice. Jordan himself worked on the novel almost daily for the last few months of his life and according to Harriet: "Some scenes were completed by Robert Jordan, and some exist in draft form; he left copious notes and hours of audio recordings."
Jordan had known the ending of the series for a long time and, according to a blog posting by his cousin, Wilson W. Grooms, Jr., on the popular Jordan fan site www.dragonmount.com, Jordan had a few months ago revealed secret details about the end of the series to close members of his family which he had never discussed before. Grooms wrote: "During a recent family sit around, he [Jordan] became the Gleeman and told the bones of it ALL to Harriet and me. You read that right, I did say ALL. Don't ask, ain't telling. Two and a half hours of story telling by the Creator himself went by in the twinkling of an eye."
Sanderson knows that fans are very anxious to read the last novel in The Wheel of Time series and says, "I'm both extremely excited and daunted by this opportunity. There is only one man who could have done this book the way it deserved to be written, and we lost him in September. However, I promise to do my very best to remain true to Mr. Jordan's vision and produce the book we have all been waiting to read."
At a recent Toastmaster's address at the World Fantasy Con this past November, author Guy Gavriel Kay saluted Jordan's enduring legacy, stating that his "impact on the place of fantasy in the culture is colossal."
Jordan has also often been referred to as Tolkien's heir and in an article about The Wheel of Time series, The New York Times lauded Jordan for his extraordinary story-telling ability: "The books' battle scenes have the breathless urgency of firsthand experience, and the ambiguities in these novels—the evil laced into the forces of good, the dangers latent in any promised salvation, the sense of the unavoidable onslaught of unpredictable events—bear the marks of American national experience during the last three decades, just as the experience of the First World War and its aftermath gave its imprint to Tolkien's work."
John Clute said of Jordan's magnum opus, "when complete, the sequence will almost certainly constitute one of the major epic narratives of modern fantasy."
Now Brandon Sanderson has signed on to complete “A Memory of Light”, with scheduled delivery of the manuscript in December 2008 and a planned publication date of Fall 2009. "The Wheel of Time turns and ages come and pass. What was, what will be, and what is, may yet fall under the Shadow. Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time?"
For more on the announcement, check out Brandon Sanderson’s recent interview HERE at Dragonmount, Brandon’s forum HERE for a discussion, you can leave comments at Brandon’s LiveJournal HERE, and I’m sure you’ll be seeing the announcement discussed on plenty of other blogs and messageboards as well :) For myself, I’m not sure what to think about it at the moment. On the one hand, it’s obviously pretty cool because it means that “A Memory of Light” will get published :D On the other hand, as much as I like Brandon Sanderson as an author, he doesn’t seem like the right choice. Then again, I’ve thought that many times with certain movies and directors which have gone on to completely surprise me, so I’ll have to save my judgments for when the book is actually completed :)
In other news, congratulations to David Ellis (KY), Laura Kubitz (IL) and Sarah Heacox who all won a copy of the graphic novel “Shooting War” by Anthony Lappé + Dan Goldman thanks to Hachette Book Group USA!!! For those not sure what “Shooting War” is, be sure to check out my review HERE and the official website HERE.
Finally, HarperCollins Publishers are giving readers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to own a piece of Tolkien history. “The Children of Húrin” was one of 2007’s biggest sellers, and here is your chance to own one of just 500 copies, signed by both the acclaimed illustrator Alan Lee and J.R.R. Tolkien's son Christopher, who compiled and edited the story from his father’s manuscripts. Each edition is leather-bound and hand-sewn; hand-numbered to 500; features unique illustrations and a two-color fold-out map, and comes in a custom leather clamshell case. A bit on the pricey side, but it would make a wonderful Christmas present :) For more information and to order a copy, the book is currently available to purchase exclusively at the new Tolkien.co.uk online store HERE.
The new novel, “A Memory of Light”, will be the twelfth and final book in the beloved fantasy series which has sold over 14 million copies in North America and over 30 million copies worldwide. The last four books in the series were all #1 New York Times bestsellers, and for over a decade fans have been eagerly awaiting the final novel that would bring the epic story to its conclusion.
Harriet Popham Rigney, Jordan's beloved wife and editor, said of her decision to have Sanderson complete the last book in The Wheel of Time series: "I have chosen Brandon Sanderson to complete Robert Jordan's great work, and I am absolutely delighted that he accepted. I will of course be editing this book as I have all of the other books of The Wheel of Time."
President and Publisher of Tor Books, Tom Doherty, also expressed his happiness with Harriet's decision, saying: "I am delighted that Harriet has chosen Brandon to complete Robert Jordan's magnificent and timeless epic."
It is the perfect match for Sanderson, who gratefully acknowledges the role Jordan played as an inspiration to him as a writer. In the tribute piece "Goodbye Mr. Jordan," posted on his blog, Sanderson writes to Jordan: "Personally, I feel indebted to you. You showed me what it was to have vision and scope in a fantasy series—you showed me what could be done. I still believe that without your success, many younger authors like myself would never have had a chance at publishing their dreams. You go quietly, but leave us trembling."
Like Jordan, Sanderson was an avid reader and writer from an early age. His debut novel, “Elantris”, was an unagented gem discovered after Sanderson, then a college student writing during his late night shift at a local hotel, approached Tor editor Moshe Feder at a fantasy convention. Several months later, after reading the manuscript and deciding he had to have it, Feder tried to find the author, who had since moved. Using the internet, he tracked down Sanderson through a campus directory—and the rest is history.
Sanderson has since gone on to establish a loyal fan base as the author of three critically acclaimed fantasy novels: “Elantris”, “Mistborn”, and “The Well of Ascension”, as well as a YA novel, “Alcatraz Versus the Evil Librarians”. Publishing trade magazines Publishers Weekly and Library Journal gave “Elantris” starred reviews and it was the winner of the Romantic Times Award for Best Epic Fantasy. The Washington Post also praised Sanderson for his creation of "a fascinating world" in “Mistborn”.
Sanderson will have large shoes to fill in his role bringing “A Memory of Light” to publication but will work very closely with Jordan's longtime editor, Harriet Rigney, to be sure that the writing stays true to Jordan's voice. Jordan himself worked on the novel almost daily for the last few months of his life and according to Harriet: "Some scenes were completed by Robert Jordan, and some exist in draft form; he left copious notes and hours of audio recordings."
Jordan had known the ending of the series for a long time and, according to a blog posting by his cousin, Wilson W. Grooms, Jr., on the popular Jordan fan site www.dragonmount.com, Jordan had a few months ago revealed secret details about the end of the series to close members of his family which he had never discussed before. Grooms wrote: "During a recent family sit around, he [Jordan] became the Gleeman and told the bones of it ALL to Harriet and me. You read that right, I did say ALL. Don't ask, ain't telling. Two and a half hours of story telling by the Creator himself went by in the twinkling of an eye."Sanderson knows that fans are very anxious to read the last novel in The Wheel of Time series and says, "I'm both extremely excited and daunted by this opportunity. There is only one man who could have done this book the way it deserved to be written, and we lost him in September. However, I promise to do my very best to remain true to Mr. Jordan's vision and produce the book we have all been waiting to read."
At a recent Toastmaster's address at the World Fantasy Con this past November, author Guy Gavriel Kay saluted Jordan's enduring legacy, stating that his "impact on the place of fantasy in the culture is colossal."
Jordan has also often been referred to as Tolkien's heir and in an article about The Wheel of Time series, The New York Times lauded Jordan for his extraordinary story-telling ability: "The books' battle scenes have the breathless urgency of firsthand experience, and the ambiguities in these novels—the evil laced into the forces of good, the dangers latent in any promised salvation, the sense of the unavoidable onslaught of unpredictable events—bear the marks of American national experience during the last three decades, just as the experience of the First World War and its aftermath gave its imprint to Tolkien's work."
John Clute said of Jordan's magnum opus, "when complete, the sequence will almost certainly constitute one of the major epic narratives of modern fantasy."
Now Brandon Sanderson has signed on to complete “A Memory of Light”, with scheduled delivery of the manuscript in December 2008 and a planned publication date of Fall 2009. "The Wheel of Time turns and ages come and pass. What was, what will be, and what is, may yet fall under the Shadow. Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time?"
For more on the announcement, check out Brandon Sanderson’s recent interview HERE at Dragonmount, Brandon’s forum HERE for a discussion, you can leave comments at Brandon’s LiveJournal HERE, and I’m sure you’ll be seeing the announcement discussed on plenty of other blogs and messageboards as well :) For myself, I’m not sure what to think about it at the moment. On the one hand, it’s obviously pretty cool because it means that “A Memory of Light” will get published :D On the other hand, as much as I like Brandon Sanderson as an author, he doesn’t seem like the right choice. Then again, I’ve thought that many times with certain movies and directors which have gone on to completely surprise me, so I’ll have to save my judgments for when the book is actually completed :)
In other news, congratulations to David Ellis (KY), Laura Kubitz (IL) and Sarah Heacox who all won a copy of the graphic novel “Shooting War” by Anthony Lappé + Dan Goldman thanks to Hachette Book Group USA!!! For those not sure what “Shooting War” is, be sure to check out my review HERE and the official website HERE.
Finally, HarperCollins Publishers are giving readers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to own a piece of Tolkien history. “The Children of Húrin” was one of 2007’s biggest sellers, and here is your chance to own one of just 500 copies, signed by both the acclaimed illustrator Alan Lee and J.R.R. Tolkien's son Christopher, who compiled and edited the story from his father’s manuscripts. Each edition is leather-bound and hand-sewn; hand-numbered to 500; features unique illustrations and a two-color fold-out map, and comes in a custom leather clamshell case. A bit on the pricey side, but it would make a wonderful Christmas present :) For more information and to order a copy, the book is currently available to purchase exclusively at the new Tolkien.co.uk online store HERE.
Meeting Father Rahl: An Interview with Terry Goodkind
By: David Craddock
During college, I took a Young Adult Literature course in which I wrote a well-received paper about Harry Potter and its positive effects on both children and the world of literature as a whole. It was so well-received that, in addition to my instructor insisting on a reading in front of my peers, she made an effort to catch up with me after class had ended.
"A word, David," Dr. Sosnowski said, hustling up to me carrying a manila folder fit to burst. After adjusting her spectacles and catching her breath, she said, "What is your current major?"
"I'm currently studying Computer Science. I really like programming, and I'd like to—ouch!"
My interruption was due to a thick manila folder filled with term papers being bashed against my skull.
"Quit playing around with that stuff," she said, "and write. You're a writer. It's what you were meant to do." With that, she scuttled into an elevator and nodded briskly at me as the doors slid closed.
Even before that unique incident, I had felt driven to write. Assembling computer code that caused programs to cater to my every whim was fun, but when I was composing a story, or an essay, or an article, my skin, my very blood, began to tingle. Dr. Sosnowski's hands-on pep talk served as a wake-up call. I'd been a reader all my life, but I'd never considered it as a viable career option. After massaging my cranium, I went home, sat down, and got to work.
When one is driven to write, one is doubtlessly influenced by peers who share a love of the craft. Terry Goodkind is near the very top of my list. With fantastic action, riveting stories, and a character-driven narrative, Goodkind's Sword of Truth series has been used both as reading material, and as inspiration. When I received the opportunity to speak with Mr. Goodkind, I was able to realize a dream. Join me as I engage Terry in a discussion of his dream of being a novelist, realizing his ambition to finally write Confessor, and his objectivist philosophy:
Q: In past interviews, you've said that you felt "driven to write" Wizard's First Rule. When did you know that Wizard's First Rule was but the first in a series?
Terry Goodkind: I'm a born storyteller. My earliest memories are of telling myself stories. I lived with the characters from the stories in my head. When I was little I remember playing in the backyard, writing and directing plays for the other kids in the neighborhood. Just some simple kidnapping storylines or whatever. So I've always told myself stories. When I say I was "driven to write," it's not as if I felt overcome with the need to write Wizard's First Rule; I've always wanted to write.
When I started thinking about Wizard's First Rule, I eventually felt that the time had come to write it down on paper. Until then, I never wrote stories down. I have dyslexia, so written words have always been something that have given me difficulty, so I never bothered with them. I was perfectly content to keep the stories in my head and tell them to myself, and to this day that's exactly what I do: I tell myself the stories. Now I write them down, of course, but it's always been my dream to write novels, so when I decided it was time, I had this character in my head—Kahlan. I was finishing building our home in Maine, so I decided that was the time, and I was thinking about Kahlan during the entire time I finished the house, so after that, I started writing.
Q: It's good to hear that. I'm attempting to publish several novels myself, and while I spent plenty of time thinking about them, about the characters and what they'd experience, I didn't know that I was ready to write until I heard an internal alarm clock begin to beep.
Terry Goodkind: I think that's critical. I get letters from people all the time saying, "I'm 13 years old and I want to write a book and get it published. What's the secret? What do I do?" You can't explain to people that they're just not intellectually prepared to write a novel. A novel is a thing of incredible complexity. Human beings are genetically evolved to understand the most subtle clues from other human beings. The most fascinating thing in the world to us is other people, and because we are so hyper-connected to the way other people behave, and to the body language [signals] they give off, the meaning in their words that are different from what they may be saying, and their moods—all those kinds of things make writing about human beings the most difficult thing in the world.
As a consequence, these young people think that novels are a collection of explosions, creatures, and magical elements. They don't understand that that's not what they're writing about. They're not intellectually equipped to write that that age. Likewise, somebody who's 18, early 20s, they think, "Okay, now I'm going to write a book." They consequently submit it all the time, and it's continually rejected because it isn't good enough. It's the same thing as the 13 year old writing a book: it isn't good enough, and they don't understand that yet. When you get to be 20 you think you're grown up, but you're not. Your brain doesn't even stop developing until you're 24, 25, something like that. The intellectual aspects critical to worthwhile novels don't develop in a person that young.
If I would have tried to write a novel when I was 20 years old, it would have been a failure, just like all the other 20 year olds who can't get published. It takes a certain amount of living, and that doesn't mean traveling the world, going to war torn areas, and all that kind of stuff; it means watching how other people move, talk, think, and behave. You need to build up a reservoir of experience writing the sun go down so that when it comes time to write a romantic sunset scene, you know how to make that scene different with words as opposed to, say, an ominous sunset scene. The sun is going down in both scenes, but to pick the words for each scene that a human being will understand, and pick up on clues that signify that this is ominous, or romantic—those things take living, they take experience.
I wasn't ready to start writing until I was 45. When I wrote “Wizard's First Rule”, I was ready. That doesn't mean that everybody has to be 45. My point is that you have to be able to draw on a well of life experience, and someone who's 13, who's 18, they just don't have that experience. When someone says to me, "I want to write a book but I just can't figure out how to get it down on paper. What do I do?," it makes me want to pull my hair out. If you don't know what to do, then you're not a writer. By default, if you're asking me what to do, you can't do it. I didn't ask anybody what to do…I was simply driven to do it. A writer is a born writer: they're born to do it, they have this internal drive, and they're hungering to tell a story to themselves. That's what makes a true writer: a person who's burning to tell themselves this story.
From the very beginning and still to this day, I just love telling myself stories. I knew what the conclusion to the series [would be] from the very beginning. There are things, startling things that happen in “Confessor” that I've kept to myself for over a decade; I haven't told anybody: my agent, my editor, my wife—no one. Being a storyteller, the most fun is to tell someone a story, and I don't want to spoil it by giving away the punch line. I've kept incredible secrets of what's happened in the series to myself. When I write them, that's when they happen.
I just always wanted to do it, and I decided that I needed to get started. It's like when you decide you need to clean the house. [laughs] There's no one moment where it hits you, you just know you need to clean the house and at some point you just know you need to get started. In my mind, it was a continuing process that was ongoing. The actual sitting down and writing the story was no different than any other stage of preparing the story than any other stage of my life.
Q: Do you have a process you undergo when you prepare to write? For example, some authors have said that when they're not writing, they like to do a lot of reading.
Terry Goodkind: Everybody is unique. From what I have been able to gather in terms of how other writers function, I don't operate anything like them. I can't even remember the last time I read a novel. I rarely read novels, partially because I have dyslexia; it takes me a long time to read. I'm a very slow reader, and I like to pay attention to words. Every word has a meaning, and I detest people who skim because they miss the essence of what the writer is saying, they miss all the little clues that give the characters their humanity.
With “Confessor”, people are already saying, "Hey, I bought the book last night and I'm already done with it!" Well, no, you're not. You flipped the pages, you didn't read it. In “Confessor”, I deliberately wrote certain things that people are going to be missed by people who skim. For example, the wizard's rule: if you skim that book, you're going to miss it. I did that on purpose, because it just ticks me off when people say, "I read the book in three minutes, it was great!" They didn't read the book.
Every word that I write is critical. I will sometimes spend half a day on one paragraph because I'm trying to get the exact right words that convey the exact, proper connotations of what the human beings are thinking, doing, whatever. Every single word I consciously intend to be there; they're not accidental. To skim and just kind of hit a few words in every paragraph, you miss all the work that I put in to make those characters humans. So when I read, I read the same way: pay attention to all the words so you understand what the writer intended. Yes, for me it's partially the dyslexia, but I also want to pay close attention.
I remember when I was in a high school creative writing class. The problem I had in school with reading was, they made you read fast. They timed you. Then you had to take a test on the highlights of what happened, and I hated that because it didn't get the essence of what the writer was talking about. You got the facts, but you didn't get the humanity. The creative writing teacher I had at the time opened my eyes to the possibility that I could be a writer. She said, "I don't care how long it takes you to read this, I want to know what you think about what the author had to say." That's always been attitude: when I read, I pay attention to what the author is saying, and that means reading the book, not skimming it.
I don't have time to read a lot of books because writing is just such a long process for me; like I said, it might take me half a day to get a paragraph done properly. I'm writing 15 hours a day, seven days a week, so I don't have time to read other material. Also, I don't read other novels because I don't like to be distracted by how other authors do things. I find it a huge negative to read other novels; it puts things in your head of how they described things, of how they created a story, how they worked a theme, all of those things. I want my work to be totally original. I read nonfiction things because I always want to learn something new.
Some people want to write in boxers, some people want to write in a tuxedo. I don't think it makes any difference. It's their drive to write that makes them a writer.
Q: What was it like to write “Confessor”, knowing that it was the last book in the Sword of Truth series?
Terry Goodkind: I didn't have time for any emotions because the schedule was so incredibly tight. I just didn't have time to ponder anything, I only had time to be in the world, in the book with the characters, writing their story. “Confessor” is a book that I've been waiting over a decade to write. I simply had to get it done. My publisher gave me a schedule for the book that was well outside my comfort zone, so I was writing “Confessor” on the ragged edge. I wrote the last 80 pages in one sitting, total stream of consciousness. I never re-read it, I just sent it off to the publisher. What you read in “Confessor”, the last 80 pages of the book, is what came up on my computer in one sitting, no editing, nothing. That's a decade worth of planning and just writing it out. It's raw Goodkind [laughs].
Q: Now that the Sword of Truth has concluded, where do you see your work taking you? Perhaps more adventures in the Sword of Truth universe, or something entirely new...?
Terry Goodkind: When you finish “Confessor”, you'll understand better what I'm saying, but the Sword of Truth series is, in essence, a prelude to what comes next. It's a prologue to all the things in my head. There are stories that branch out from this point into all sorts of directions. There are many things I would like to write. I would like to write more about this universe that I've created; it's fun being there every day. On the other hand, I get incredibly frustrated by the realities of the marketplace when you're labeled as a fantasy writer; it's very debilitating for your career, because everything you do is judged on that scale.
I'm not writing about fantasy. And you recognize that! You recognize that I'm dealing with larger issues and the things that are central to all people. I want to write to an audience that includes all people, and fantasy limits that due to its mechanics: the mechanics of where it's placed in bookstores; the mechanics of the covers; the mechanics of the word 'fantasy' on a book; all of those things [make it more difficult to] reach a broader audience. I would like to write contemporary novels. The stories I'm telling are not fantasy-driven, they're character-driven, and the characters I want to write about could be set in any world. I'd like to address a broader audience.
However, I also like writing about this universe, the Sword of Truth, and I may write many more books [within it].
Q: You've often said that your books serve as the missing link between our world and the world of myth. What exactly do you mean?
Terry Goodkind: Until you read “Confessor”, you won't know what I'm talking about in terms of that statement. Stories are something that have always been instrumental to human beings. When cavemen sat around a fire, I'm sure they told stories. Stories have always been the way people have passed their knowledge and their culture on to other people. It's the way they describe their understanding of their world and their existence. Stories are central to the human experience, and help us understand how we fit into the world.
At the same time, a story is a representation of the author's values. When you share those values, when you have the same values as the author, you're reading a story and seeing your values which may be difficult to understand in daily life because they take place over such a long range. When a reader sees those values realized in a story, it energizes him into believing in himself and understanding that yes, he can be the best person he can be, he can achieve goals and overcome difficulties. The reader sees someone else do those things in a story and gives him hope, courage, the strength to struggle on.
There are parts of stories, the parts that contain myth, that have always fascinated me. How did myth get into the storytelling tradition? The Sword of Truth series is my explanation of one way that myth became part of our world. When you read “Confessor”, you will understand where myth came from. It's a mind-blowing concept, and I just think it's the coolest thing ever. I don't know if anyone has ever done anything like this before. When you read “Confessor”, you understand the larger meaning of what I've been doing. Like I said, I never tell anybody what I'm up to, I just keep working and telling myself stories.
There are things that have happened throughout the series that have all been working toward the final book, the conclusion of “Confessor”. It's kind of like foreshadowing: you don't realize it until later, but those things are all there for a reason. When you get to “Confessor”, all of those elements that have been in the back of your mind all the way are suddenly brought to the forefront, that “Confessor” is the keystone of this entire series. And you see the series in an entirely new light. All the books that you liked before, you realize the part they played in a large context, not just in Richard's life and in his struggle with the Imperial Order, but his whole world, and our whole world, and how they fit together. I just think it's the coolest thing ever. It's a jaw-dropping experience to see what happens, and I think it's something that is really going to be a delight for readers.
In that way, I guess I can understand why people skim, because some stories are so exciting, you just have to know what happens next, you just can't wait to know and you have to go as fast as you can because you want to know what happens. I think “Confessor” is a book that people will want to go back and read again, because after they've satisfied their overwhelming, all-consuming, burning ambition to know the outcome, they'll want to go back and re-experience all of the details. It's a really fun ride.
Q: One aspect of your series that was given center stage in “Confessor” was the game of Ja'La. What was your inspiration in the creation of this brutal sport?
Terry Goodkind: Well, that's a very difficult question because of the word inspiration. That's not the way I write. I write from broad concepts and I think up a story to fit the concept that I'm trying to illustrate. For example, if you want to illustrate the concept of individual liberty, it's too broad of a concept to just say, "Freedom is good, slavery is bad." That has no emotional impact. You need to tell a story that gets that emotion across. That's what “Faith of the Fallen” was. It was a story derived to illustrate that broad theme, so what I'm doing is illustrating a broad theme.
Ja'La was a very conscious, deliberate goal on my part to get across certain things about the characters. I wanted to illustrate how, in a society that is repressive and mindless, and values mediocrity above all else, and values no one excelling, an enforced equality where no one is allowed to be better than anyone else, where no one is allowed to do their best—I wanted to illustrate how people find outlets for their desire for excellence. Ja'La is that outlet for people, to see someone rise up and do better. It's done in a controlled context within that society so that it gives a release that diverts people's attention from their own life, from their own desire to rise up and do better. It's like a pressure release valve on a pressure cooker that keeps the society from exploding.
At the same time, within that game, the emperor [Jagang] has his own ego invested, and the interplay in all of those things is what I wanted to show. When someone comes along who isn't going to play by the rules, who's going to lay down the law even though he's a prisoner and not allowed to have his own freedom—the freedom comes through in the way he behaves. I wanted to show that even in that kind of situation, an individual can accomplish something on their own even though they're restricted in many ways. The Ja'La games served a lot of different purposes.
Q: Does Ja'La reflect any personal views you have of sports in general?
Terry Goodkind: Human beings are driven to succeed. Sports are, in a sense, a very simplified story of overcoming obstacles to achieve a goal. For example, young people need to be able to practice life, they need to be able to practice challenges and accomplishing things, and how to overcome difficulties. In a hunting society, they might have been taught how to shoot a bow and arrow, and they learn to hunt by those activities. Sitting around campfires and passing on stories about great hunts was a way of passing on experience.
In the society we have now, stories help by being part of that function. Because of the deterioration in modern literature, as well as things like T.V. and movies, those values are relegated to a bin. The destruction of values leaves young people no outlet for how to learn about life, to learn about overcoming challenges. As a consequence, they turn away from reading because it doesn't fulfill that basic human need. They turn to things like video games. In video games, you create your own story. You're the young hunter, or maybe you're going on a quest, and you're overcoming obstacles and difficulties in order to achieve success.
Society has stripped away so much of the challenge of life. Everybody's got forced self-worth, and you can't hand people self-worth; self-worth is earned. In stories, and in movies, in school, in T.V., you're handed self-worth. They teach that as a human being, it's your right to have self-worth. As a consequence, people don't know what it's like to achieve self-worth, so they turn to things like video games to learn the accomplishment of overcoming difficulty and succeeding. Games are the same kind of thing. Watching games allow you to participate in sharing the mental challenge of, what's the next play, how are we going to get by these guys to score a point?
It's all part of life. It's about learning to strategize, learning to analyze, to figure out and perceive the plan, a cause and effect. So much of all of those things are taken away in life, so people turn to sports. It's just like the Old World in the Sword of Truth series. There's no way for people to experience those things except through sports. In societies that are stripped of values, they turn to things like sports because it's the only place where they can see values exercised, even if those values are simplistic.
Q: The cover art for most of your novels is extraordinary. How did you come to work with Keith Parkinson?
Terry Goodkind: I got Keith Parkinson because I was so disgusted, angry, and infuriated with the original cover of “Wizard's First Rule” that I almost quit writing for public consumption. I was livid. The cover on “Wizard's First Rule” did not represent in any way what I was writing about. It represented a juvenile, immature vision that reflected nothing about the book. It was complete deception by the publisher, trying to fool people into thinking that I was writing for adolescent males. I was absolutely livid, and I just about tore up my contract and said, "That's it, I'm not writing anymore books." My editor said, "If you don't like this, then who do you like?" I said, "Keith Parkinson."
Keith did the cover of “Stone of Tears”, but he couldn't do the cover of “Blood of the Fold”, so we were back to the idiotic covers. After that, Keith did all the covers. Throughout the series, my goal has been to steer the covers away from traditional fantasy covers because I'm not writing fantasy. I'm accidentally published by a fantasy publisher so I get thrown in with that genre, but my books are no more fantasy than a detective novel is a "gun book." What makes me nuts about the fantasy genre is that, unlike any other genre, people become obsessed and focused on irrelevant things. For example, in a detective novel, if a detective has a Snub Nose 38, no one asks him questions like "Can we know more about the Snub Nose 38?" or "Have you ever thought of doing some kind of special story just about the Snub Nose 38?" It's a distraction.
To me, fantasy is no more important than the romance, the intrigue, the political maneuvering, historical fiction elements—all the other kinds of things in other books. I like those elements, and I enjoy writing them, but they're just elements in telling a human story. I don't believe fantasy is valid unless it's used to illustrate other important themes. Magic in and of itself is no more interesting than a rock laying on the side of the road.
The cover of fantasy art tends to illustrate those themes of those authors who are writing those kinds of books. I'm not one of them, and I don't want to be seen as one of them. From the beginning, my goal has been to steer the cover art away from those representational images. Keith became a really good friend, and he would do covers before I even wrote the books. I was describing to him what a cover needed to look like, and then as an artist, I could convey to him very accurately what I wanted him to paint. He and I got along very well and had a great time designing covers. My goal was to pull out of Keith something more noble than the typical red dragon.
For example, with “Faith of the Fallen”, I need you to paint a painting that illustrated the nobility of the human spirit. He said, "Oh, gee, don't give me anything too hard, Terry!" [laughs] My goal has always been to write above that kind of representational art. Even with covers like “Temple of the Winds” where you see a guy [on the cover] holding a sword; that, to me, is a really cool piece of art, I love it—but as a cover, I don't like it, because it turns off vast amounts of readers. You automatically disqualify the book for consideration by much of the public. And these are people who love these types of books, but the art doesn't convey to them that they like it.
I've gotten most of my readers by word of mouth. My typical reader, probably 80-90 percent of my readers, don't read fantasy. I'm the only "fantasy" author they read, otherwise for them it's general fiction. They recognize that the books aren't fantasy books, they're books about people, they're character-driven. My goal has always been to change the cover art in a way that represents the spirit of what the book is about. With Chainfire, Phantom, and Confessor, those are the first books that are truly my vision of what I want the covers to be. I've finally achieved the kind of covers that I want, that give you a hint of the mystery, romance, intrigue, and even a little bit of the fantasy elements in the book, but at the same time, it illustrates how the books are meant for all people, for all people who just like stories.
After “Temple of the Winds”, I got contractual cover control. Keith and I designed the Chainfire template of how those [three] books looks. When you see Chainfire, Phantom, and Confessor, you're seeing my pure vision, unadulterated by what anyone else thinks it should be. Keith and I designed everything down to the smallest detail.
Q: As popular as your books are, you've never won any awards, though you have been nominated several times. How does that make you feel? I get the feeling that you don't even care about awards.
Terry Goodkind: This is the first time I've ever heard that I've been nominated for any award. I don't know what I've been nominated for, I'm...I'm completely unaware! I've heard of the Hugo Award...I don't know any other kinds. I could care less about awards. My award is a reader opening their wallet and giving up their hard-earned money to read my stories, and more than that, giving up their time. As I said, time is mankind's greatest value. It's the only thing you really have. When a reader gives up a part of their life to allow me to tell them a story, they're giving me something precious. That's my award. Doing my best to satisfy myself, and ultimately my readers—that's the only award I care about.
Q: What are your thoughts on Sam Raimi converting Wizard's First Rule into a television series?
Terry Goodkind: Sam Raimi is a person who believes in heroes. His Spider-Man movies are obviously about a heroic person who's rising up to challenges. Sam was instrumental in making that movie about a real person. He understood that [Spider-Man] is about a real individual who had to rise to challenges and be heroic. He strongly believes in the sacredness in heroes for all of us, for kids and adults alike. That's something that really drew him to Wizard's First Rule: he loves the characters; he loves the heroic aspects of [the story]. The reason he wants it done for T.V. is because he says that if he were to do it as a two hour movie, it would ruin the story. He has so much respect for the story that the last thing in the world he wants to do is ruin it; he wants to do a television format.
Right now he's working on who [the audience] it's going to be for and what format will it take, whether it's going to be an hour [per week] miniseries. He's in the early planning stages, and he wants me to be intimately involved in all aspects of it—more involved than I have time to be! He's told me he wants this to be true to my vision, because if I love it, my fans will love it, and if my readers love it, the general audience will love it. He thinks my involvement [in the project] is integral to its success, and he wants me to be there for every stage of it—and I plan to be.
He's just one of the nicest people I've ever met, and I'm excited to have the opportunity to work with him. He's the first person whom I've encountered that I had enough respect for, and who I thought could do the job, that really excited me.
Q: Did your surgery in 2006 affect your writing?
Terry Goodkind: The short answer is: no. I had a defect in a major artery that supplies blood to my heart, and it would have killed me within a couple of weeks. They had to bypass that defect, which was like a kink in a garden hose. They used an artery from my chest, and it was successful. They said I have no heart disease or anything like that, and in fact the surgeon said it was a pleasure to operate on someone who was healthy for a change. [laughs] It was just one of those things that, had I not been as healthy as I was, it would have killed me. The defect was in what they call the widow artery. It's the artery that, when you have a heart attack, you can't be recovered, so I was fortunate in that they were able to fix it in time. Having open heart surgery was no fun, but all it did was reinforce everything that I believe.
My wife is the most important thing to me, and she was my guardian angel. I knew she was right there standing over me, watching over things, and so I knew that I could be put to sleep and she would take care of everything, and would be there for me. When you open your eyes and the people you love are there to smile at you and say "Hi," that's what matters. The other stuff is all fun, but the important things are the values I write about. It didn't change my values, it just proved to me that those simple things such as the people around you who you care about, and who care about you—that's all that really matters. That's the joy of life.
Q: It's such a rare and beautiful thing to have that, to have a real connection with another human being.
Terry Goodkind: Yeah, and that's one of the things that's been so important to me throughout the whole series: to write about a caring relationship in which the people are very real. They're realistic about each other, how they can get angry at each other over something, but it doesn't mean they don't love one another. Even when they're angry, they maintain their respect. They may be angry at the situation, at what someone did, but they don't hate the other person. Love is still the basis of their relationship. I wanted to show how beautiful connection can be.
There are so many people that think, "I'll be with this person for a while, and if we don't like each other, we'll part," and they mistake momentary pleasure for human joy. In so doing, they make a trade in which they end up being the loser. They sacrifice a part of their life that they'll never get back for an experience that is ultimately not worthwhile.
Q: I'd like to talk to you about your personal philosophy: objectivism. What led you to become an objectivist?
Terry Goodkind: Ayn Rand is the inventor of the objectivist philosophy. I consider her the greatest thinker since Aristotle. She made advances in the world of philosophy that no one since Aristotle has made. Her thinking on concept formation is truly groundbreaking and explains so much about philosophy that's never been explained before. I'm much more fascinated by her non-objective writing on philosophy than on her fiction. Her fiction is kind of a way to popularize her ideas, to put them in a story form, like I was talking about, how sitting around a campfire, you passed around your tribe's philosophy to the younger generation.
Her books like Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology are just incredibly ground-breaking, profound works on understanding how the human mind works. Objectivism is her philosophy, and it's always been my philosophy, too, but when I discovered Ayn Rand, she was able to put things into concepts that made them easier for me to integrate my own thinking.
Ayn Rand said, 'My philosophy, in essence is the concept of Man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.' Reality, A=A, is necessary to the pursuit of life. When you're designing an airplane, you have to use the facts of reality to make the airplane fly. You can't decide, "I wish if I designed a wing this other way, it would keep the plane aloft." Your wishes aren't going to be fulfilled, and reality will bite you when you try to fly the airplane. So to achieve happiness in your life, to achieve your goals, you must use the true nature of reality. It was Francis Bacon [English philosopher] who said, "Nature to be commanded must first be obeyed." You have to be able to use truth to achieve your goals. You're not going to ever achieve them by hoping that success will come to you; you need to use reality to accomplish goals.
I'm an objectivist, and I have a lot of objectivist thinking through Richard [Rahl]. I'm not trying to teach objectivism in books; these [the Sword of Truth books] are just fun stories. The main characters are Richard and Kahlan. They think like I do because they're my heroes. They are people I admire and look up to, and I have them reflect the kind of thinking that, to me, is heroic thinking. So while I use objectivist principles in the stories I'm telling, that's not my purpose. My purpose is to tell a fun story, not to be a philosophy teacher.
Q: Actually, it was your views expressed primarily through Richard, Kahlan, and Nicci that persuaded me to look further into the philosophy of objectivism.
Terry Goodkind: I'm glad to hear that. You cannot separate philosophy from art. Every brushstroke, every word, every piece of clay that you sculpt, is driven by your philosophy. If you have a philosophy of mankind as decrepit and evil, you have medieval art, where you show mankind as this ulcerous, ineffectual creature. When you view mankind as noble and heroic, you have reached [art]. The philosophy of a culture as a whole drives art, and an artist individually drives what he does.
If you believe in heroic individuals, you write about heroic individuals. If you think that life is purposeless and meaningless, you write stories like that—and your books are meaningless and pointless, and miserable. That's the problem: too many authors are selected to be published who believe that life is meaningless and miserable, and we have too many miserable, meaningless forms of entertainment out there. That's why people are turning away from reading and turning instead to things where they don't have to endure that kind of misery—sports and video games. [laughs]
Q: While I do enjoy video games, it has always saddened me that the arrival of a new game, or a new movie, or some sort of new-fangled form of entertainment causes consumers to line up around city blocks in anticipation, but literature no longer has that effect, at least not in comparison to other mediums.
Terry Goodkind: Absolutely, I completely agree. I don't think that it's a good thing, and I don't think that it's necessarily worthwhile, I'm just trying to explain that it's [sports and video games] the last vestige of winning and losing that [people] are allowed to engage in. In life, everything is tried to be made into a zero sum game, like playing soccer, where a tie can be a goal of the game, or maybe a game where no one is allowed to win because someone would feel bad. It's too bad that people are driven to those things, it's too bad that people can't find [victory] in other things; they're driven to movies, and T.V., and sports.
Q: Back on the subject of objectivism, I've always had some difficulty in fully understanding it, because it seems riddled with contradictions, something I don't believe can exist. Objectivism states that I have the right to pursue my own happiness, but not at the expense of someone else's; that also works vice versa.
Yet it seems that in any given scenario, someone's happiness will always be sacrificed for another person's.
Terry Goodkind: You have no right to anyone else's life. So, you have no right, for example, to rob someone. That's their life, you have no right to, say, kill them. If you choose to sacrifice, if you see someone drowning in a river and you decide to jump in and try to save them at the risk of your own life, that's perfectly fine—but you shouldn't be required to sacrifice yourself. 'Required sacrifice' is another term for 'slavery'. When you're required to sacrifice for others, that's saying that your life has no value except to serve others. Who's deciding whose life is worth more than yours? That's the state, or religion, and they're saying that you have no value as an individual; your only value is to sacrifice yourself [for the greater good].
Q: So if I see you drowning in a river, I can choose to jump in and try to save you, but I don't have to?
Terry Goodkind: Yes, exactly.
Q: But that's where I grow confused. If I choose not to save you, aren't I sacrificing your happiness for mine?
Terry Goodkind: Well, the person has no obligation to sacrifice or risk their life [to save someone]. It's not their responsibility to save you. If you volunteer for a search and rescue duty, and that's your job, then you've taken on that responsibility. But as an individual just walking along, you could lose your life jumping into the river. You don't have to sacrifice your life to save someone else's.
But, these thought experiments are kind of distracting questions. These situations will never happen in your life for the most part. What people [religion and state] try to do is, they try to take those examples and say "You should help another person" and then they bring that down to the real issue of what they want: for you to sacrifice your life for other people, sometimes in other ways [than death]. For example, some people want you to give up your income to give to other people who don't have the ability or desire to, and that's the real practical application: collectivism. With a collectivist sort of mentality—I don't believe in that.
Q: But is it considered a sacrifice of someone's happiness if I allow them to die?
Terry Goodkind: You're not sacrificing their happiness if they drown, because you're not the one who threw them in the river. If you are the one who threw them in the river, then yeah [you sacrificed their happiness]. People are dying all over the world every day, all the time. It's not your job to save them. By not jumping into the river, you're not causing [them to die].
You have to make a judgment on your own abilities. If you can jump into the river and you're a really good swimmer, then you're going to feel more of an obligation to [try to save them]. But if you're afraid of the water, it's going to be a true, sincere risk to your life...why should you sacrifice your life to save this person? You're not the one who threw them into the water. You're not obligated to give your life away to save that person.
Q: So it does all come down to choice. Even if I'm a very capable swimmer but don't want to risk dying, that's okay?
Terry Goodkind: Yes. See, you're getting into really esoteric areas of philosophy, and the problem is, collectivists use those arguments to take you off track. They use extreme examples that are never going to happen in your life to cause you, on a daily basis, to sacrifice your own happiness, your future, because of some example that's concocted. The real question is, are you, on a daily basis, going to sacrifice your happiness, your existence, for other people? And why are those other people more important than you?
This is the only life you're going to have. Every moment that goes by, you're never going to have back again. When you sacrifice part of your life, you're exchanging it for something. For example, if you give your time to you children, it's because you value your children. You've chosen to give that time to something that brings value to your life, that brings a reward to your existence. If you like ice cream and you decide to sacrifice your time to drive to an ice cream shop, it's because the value of that ice cream is worthwhile to you. You've made a trade: part of your existence toward something you value.
The successful pursuit of values is essential to the continuation of life. In your life, the values you pursue enable you to continue to exist. The value of a job so that you can have money to have shelter, clothes, and food... those are necessary for your survival. If someone says to you, "We're taking away the money you've earned to give to someone else," they are taking a value away from you that threatens your survival, because that [the money] is what you have given part of your life to achieve in order to continue your existence. Another person has no right to say, "We're going to sacrifice you so that this other person can live." Why is this other person's life more valuable than yours? Who are they to decide what happens to your existence?
There's no such thing as "the common good". It's not "common", it's about individuals. Every action, every sacrifice is imposed, is on the behalf of other individuals. You don't have the right to demand that another person sacrifice their existence. Where are you going to draw the line? Once you give the authority of your existence over to a church, or a government, or a state, you've given them the authority to divvy up your life. They can say, "He can afford to give up 10 percent of what I earn to help other people." If you want to, fine, but why should that be imposed upon you by someone else? Don't forget, that person can decide tomorrow to say, "Your continued existence is detrimental to other people's existence. You're harming the environment, you're using too many resources—were going to have you put to death."
Nothing and no one has the right to take your life. Intellectual property is also a part of the value you have created. All of the effort you put into creating a living belongs to you; it doesn't belong to anyone else, and there's nothing that can change that. That's the problem: certain people are driven by the hatred of mankind. Human beings are the only species that can hate their own existence. There are people who are driven by hatred. It comes from indoctrination in the form of religion that might tell you to blow yourself up so you can kill other people, it comes from misunderstanding the purpose of your own existence. What happens is, philosophy becomes corrupted by people treating philosophy like a smorgasbord. They say, "Well, I believe this part, but I also believe this." You can't go to a philosophical smorgasbord and pick out what you want; reality is what it is.
What people do is, they ascribe values to things. A tree is a value to human beings for a variety of reasons: because it makes oxygen, because you can turn it into a piano, because you can burn it in the fireplace to keep warm. So a tree has value to a human being, but a tree does not have value intrinsically, in the absence of human beings. You can't ascribe values to things that are nonhuman. You can't say that a rock in and of itself, without human beings has value. Value for what? It has a value if a human being needs a rock to build a foundation for a house, but it can't have a value independent of mankind.
Nature cannot have a value independent of mankind, and this is what the environmental movement has become: a religion. They've ascribed value to nature absent mankind. They've ascribed value to nature, and so what happens is, whatever you do to harm nature, people say, "You've harmed this good thing, that makes mankind bad." They're using that line of philosophy to hate mankind, because mankind is detrimental to nature. They've turned nature into a religion, making into something that is holy without reality. If nature has value, it's for how mankind can use it. It's incumbent upon human beings to respect nature for their own rational self-interests.
For example, poisoning a river is bad not because it hurts nature, because nature has no value in and of itself. It's bad because it [poisoning the river] hurts mankind. You poison the river and other people are going to get poisoned, and then you're infringing on their right to exist. You want clean air because you need clean air to breathe, to leave longer. Respect for the environment meant should be based on mankind's [needs].
That's in part what I'm writing about [in the Sword of Truth series]: the struggle between humans who are driven by a love of life, and people driven by a hatred of life. Sure, there are bad things about life, but that's the purpose of struggling: to change those things, to make them better. That's what I've tried to show through the books: that you can be better, you can rise up and live a life, but there are people who are mindlessly devoted to hatred, to the destruction of life, and they use any excuse to justify their own hatred, and that's all it is: hatred for their own existence, for their own inability to live their own life. The things they come up with, like sacrificing for the greater good, are just ways of lowering the standard of everyone's life.
Q: In addition to objectivism, faith is another theme in your books. The Imperial Order uses faith as an excuse to rape, pillage, and murder. They don't care what happens in the mortal world because, according to them, eternal rewards await them in the afterlife.
Do you view faith as the antithesis of reason? Because there are religious people who use their faith for good, and then there are those who fly planes into buildings.
Terry Goodkind: Faith is merely the excuse for force. Faith cannot be supported by reality, it has to be supported by force. Faith is the precursor to force. You start out with some lovely story, and when people don't believe it, you end up having to kill them. You kill the people who refuse to believe so that you can ensure the continuation of the faith.
If someone has faith that every star they see in the night sky is the soul of some saint, they can believe that, that can be their faith, and they don't have to go out and kill someone to make them believe it. But if you want to force other people to believe that, you can try to coerce them into believing it, try to force them into believing it. If your faith is strong enough and you feel that your credibility relies on forcing people to believe that [your faith], then you end up with a mass inquisition. It depends on the individual's need to believe in that faith. The more they need to have that faith be real to them, the more they need to have others believe it.
For example, take the need for people to help others, to contribute some of their income to help the welfare of other Americans. That's their faith, so they create the income tax system. If you're not willing to go along with their faith and go along with the greater good, then they come with guns and take you to jail. They are willing to force to enforce that faith. So, Americans are, in essence, sacrificing part of their life into slavery to others. That faith is enforced by guns and jails. We're not willingly giving them part of our income; people don't like paying taxes, and justifiably so, because they're sacrificing part of their life to other people. It's this concept of sacrificing for the greater good, and that faith is being enforced by a government who has guns and jails.
You can happily pay your taxes and say "There's no force involved, I'm paying my taxes." But you better believe that if you don't, they'll be happy to come and take [your tax money] from you.
Q: So you consider that to be like tithing in a church? Being instructed to donate a certain percentage of your income, for example?
Terry Goodkind: Right, and if you don't do it, then you become increasingly urged to do it, either through lectures or having people turn away from you and regard you as stingy, having people talk behind your back and how you're not doing your part. There are so many subtle and not-so-subtle ways that faith is enforced. The church that believes that you should tithe may never actually come and take it from you at gunpoint like the government will, but they have their own ways of enforcing their faith—like telling you you're going to burn in hell [laughs].
Q: Given your philosophical views, what is your opinion on the War on Terror?
Terry Goodkind: There is no such thing as a "War on Terror." This is another example of philosophy corrupting action. You can't have a war on a name. "Hate crime" is another one of those things: either it's a crime, or it's not. Either someone is doing something wrong, or they're not. We're not having a war on terror, we're having a war on Islamic fundamentalism. We're afraid to name the enemy, and in [that fear], we give them strength. When you can't name the enemy, you've already lost. When you're afraid to see who it is you're fighting, you've already lost.
Take, for example, what we're doing in Iraq. The basic thing we're trying to do is enforce democracy. Democracy is a free-floating concept. There's no goodness [inherent] in democracy. Gang rape is democracy in action. Why should we enforce democracy? Why should we have Americans die so [Iraq] can elect a government who wants to kill us? It's stupid. Force should be used by a government just like it should be used by an individual: to prevent someone else from harm. That's the only valid, moral, ethical purpose of force: to protect your life. If somebody's trying to protect you, you should protect your life.
We have Americans dying over there to enforce democracy so that [Iraq] can vote to kill us. It's absurd. There's nothing holy about democracy. The sidetrack of adopting slogans like "making the world safe for democracy"... it's a free-floating concept; there's nothing good [inherent in] democracy. Democracy can be good if it's supported by other ethical values; justice, for example, and not hurting other people. But we're not enforcing a moral form of democracy; we're just supporting the idea of democracy in general, and there's nothing more about democracy in and of itself.
The war on terror is merely theatrics to convince the American people that something is being done. All you have to do is go to an airport to see how philosophy has caused a breakdown in effective action. Airport security is pure theatrics to convince people that something is being done, and it ignores the reality of the nature of the threat. We have [security] people searching obvious non-threats because they don't want to be seen as profiling. When you're looking for a burglar, and the burglar is two-foot-ten, and you put out an APB for that burglar, that's not profiling, it's a description of the subject. The authorities should know who they're fighting.
When you say you're fighting terror, there's no such thing as "terror" as an enemy. You're doing gang rape on 80 year-old Swedish grandmothers because you're afraid to say that the enemy are Middle Eastern men. This distraction, this forced equality, is ignoring of reality. Philosophy is at the cause of this because they're ignoring reality in order to adapt meaningless principles. The philosophy is going to get us all killed.
In World War II, in Japan, there were no deaths of Americans by insurgence, and the reason [for that] is because America, at that time, had the courage to crush those who were enforcing evil ideas. We may have had to kill a lot of people, but it was the only way to crush those evil ideas. And because we crushed those evil ideas, an entire culture in Japan grew up to create a great, noble, free people who have become an engine of freedom and an engine of economy in the world.
You either crush evil or you don't. If you allow evil to co-exist with you, it's only going to grow. We're allowing evil to grow. We're too timid to attack evil, and make no mistake: the Islamic world wants to kill us, and sooner or later, an atomic bomb is going to go off in the United States because we don't even have the courage to name the enemy.
Q: You make an excellent point. I've always believed that we're attacking a word, a phrase, more than anything or anyone else.
Terry Goodkind: Yes, exactly. It's this philosophy that they've adapted from a derivative of Kantian philosophy, and this is what's taught at a lot of our universities. The basic premise is that we can't know reality, because every person sees the world through their own eyes, and they're ill-equipped to discern reality. What you see is different than what I see, and our eyes are what tell us what's real. Because we each see things differently, none of us are able to judge what's real and what's not real, and because we can't tell what's real, we can't know what reality is, and [if that's the case] it means that we can't know right from wrong, and that means that none of us can judge what's right and what's wrong.
Therefore, all culture is morally equivalent, because we're [none of us] equipped to judge right and wrong. Moral equivalency is the root cause of guys standing at airline gates, date raping Swedish grandmothers. No culture is better or worse than the other culture; all beliefs are equal, and that's not true. That's a failure to recognize the nature of reality. In World War II, we realized that the Nazis and the Japanese were devoted at evil ideas that were aimed at the destruction of mankind, and we crushed those evil ideas so that they couldn't come here and kill us.
Today, we're unwilling to crush those people who want to kill us, and by using [phrases like] "War on Terror", it's our way of saying, "Well, we can't name the enemy because all cultures are equal," so we can't say "It's Islamic fundamentalism that wants to kill us" because all cultures are morally equivalent. It's that derivative of Kantian philosophy that causes people to hold those beliefs, and those beliefs will eventually result in our destruction. People can't survive if they can't recognize evil.
If we can't name the enemy, how are we going to fight them? We end up frisking people at the airport and missing the real threat, because all that is, is a show for the American public so that they think that something is being done. Meanwhile, real terrorists know how to get around those things; they know how to get jobs as baggage handlers, and get onto the planes and plant bombs, and all these other things. We're diverting attention from the real problem by coming up with all these theatrics. What they're trying to do is criminalize individuals rather than name the philosophies that are responsible for those beliefs.
In a way, the Sword of Truth series has been my way of railing against the stupidity of which way the world is going. In the great sweep of history, mankind goes between nobility and darkness. You see the nobility of the Greek civilization, the renaissance—those kinds of time periods where great motivations of mankind are put toward the betterment of mankind. And then you see other points in history, such as the Dark Age, where mankind slid into a perverse thinking. I view the world in those great arcs of history, and the great movement of that pendulum between nobility and darkness—and I see the world today on the decline into darkness. I believe we're on the brink of another dark age. The Sword of Truth series is a wake-up call for people to pay attention to what's going on.
I don't know if those great movements of history can be halted. I think that the war on terror is just one minor indication of the many, many corrupt ways of thinking that are leading us into this next Dark Age.
Q: Mr. Goodkind, thank you so much for this interview. You really inspire me, both as a writer and as a human being. I really appreciate you taking the time to talk with me today.
Terry Goodkind: Thank you. I've always felt that, for me, writing novels is my noblest ambition; it's what I've always wanted to do. It's a fun thing, to tell stories that inspire people in so many different ways and on so many different levels. Every book has a theme, and the theme of the Sword of Truth series is, your life is your own; rise up and live it. That I inspire people to do that, to me, is the most gratifying thing because I touch people's lives.
That's how valuable stories are: you can touch lives, you can make connections, and...what a cool job, to be able to do something that wakes people up and hopefully helps them make their own lives happier. What could be better than that?
By: David Craddock
During college, I took a Young Adult Literature course in which I wrote a well-received paper about Harry Potter and its positive effects on both children and the world of literature as a whole. It was so well-received that, in addition to my instructor insisting on a reading in front of my peers, she made an effort to catch up with me after class had ended.
"A word, David," Dr. Sosnowski said, hustling up to me carrying a manila folder fit to burst. After adjusting her spectacles and catching her breath, she said, "What is your current major?"
"I'm currently studying Computer Science. I really like programming, and I'd like to—ouch!"
My interruption was due to a thick manila folder filled with term papers being bashed against my skull.
"Quit playing around with that stuff," she said, "and write. You're a writer. It's what you were meant to do." With that, she scuttled into an elevator and nodded briskly at me as the doors slid closed.
Even before that unique incident, I had felt driven to write. Assembling computer code that caused programs to cater to my every whim was fun, but when I was composing a story, or an essay, or an article, my skin, my very blood, began to tingle. Dr. Sosnowski's hands-on pep talk served as a wake-up call. I'd been a reader all my life, but I'd never considered it as a viable career option. After massaging my cranium, I went home, sat down, and got to work.
When one is driven to write, one is doubtlessly influenced by peers who share a love of the craft. Terry Goodkind is near the very top of my list. With fantastic action, riveting stories, and a character-driven narrative, Goodkind's Sword of Truth series has been used both as reading material, and as inspiration. When I received the opportunity to speak with Mr. Goodkind, I was able to realize a dream. Join me as I engage Terry in a discussion of his dream of being a novelist, realizing his ambition to finally write Confessor, and his objectivist philosophy:
Q: In past interviews, you've said that you felt "driven to write" Wizard's First Rule. When did you know that Wizard's First Rule was but the first in a series?
Terry Goodkind: I'm a born storyteller. My earliest memories are of telling myself stories. I lived with the characters from the stories in my head. When I was little I remember playing in the backyard, writing and directing plays for the other kids in the neighborhood. Just some simple kidnapping storylines or whatever. So I've always told myself stories. When I say I was "driven to write," it's not as if I felt overcome with the need to write Wizard's First Rule; I've always wanted to write.
When I started thinking about Wizard's First Rule, I eventually felt that the time had come to write it down on paper. Until then, I never wrote stories down. I have dyslexia, so written words have always been something that have given me difficulty, so I never bothered with them. I was perfectly content to keep the stories in my head and tell them to myself, and to this day that's exactly what I do: I tell myself the stories. Now I write them down, of course, but it's always been my dream to write novels, so when I decided it was time, I had this character in my head—Kahlan. I was finishing building our home in Maine, so I decided that was the time, and I was thinking about Kahlan during the entire time I finished the house, so after that, I started writing.
Q: It's good to hear that. I'm attempting to publish several novels myself, and while I spent plenty of time thinking about them, about the characters and what they'd experience, I didn't know that I was ready to write until I heard an internal alarm clock begin to beep.Terry Goodkind: I think that's critical. I get letters from people all the time saying, "I'm 13 years old and I want to write a book and get it published. What's the secret? What do I do?" You can't explain to people that they're just not intellectually prepared to write a novel. A novel is a thing of incredible complexity. Human beings are genetically evolved to understand the most subtle clues from other human beings. The most fascinating thing in the world to us is other people, and because we are so hyper-connected to the way other people behave, and to the body language [signals] they give off, the meaning in their words that are different from what they may be saying, and their moods—all those kinds of things make writing about human beings the most difficult thing in the world.
As a consequence, these young people think that novels are a collection of explosions, creatures, and magical elements. They don't understand that that's not what they're writing about. They're not intellectually equipped to write that that age. Likewise, somebody who's 18, early 20s, they think, "Okay, now I'm going to write a book." They consequently submit it all the time, and it's continually rejected because it isn't good enough. It's the same thing as the 13 year old writing a book: it isn't good enough, and they don't understand that yet. When you get to be 20 you think you're grown up, but you're not. Your brain doesn't even stop developing until you're 24, 25, something like that. The intellectual aspects critical to worthwhile novels don't develop in a person that young.
If I would have tried to write a novel when I was 20 years old, it would have been a failure, just like all the other 20 year olds who can't get published. It takes a certain amount of living, and that doesn't mean traveling the world, going to war torn areas, and all that kind of stuff; it means watching how other people move, talk, think, and behave. You need to build up a reservoir of experience writing the sun go down so that when it comes time to write a romantic sunset scene, you know how to make that scene different with words as opposed to, say, an ominous sunset scene. The sun is going down in both scenes, but to pick the words for each scene that a human being will understand, and pick up on clues that signify that this is ominous, or romantic—those things take living, they take experience.
I wasn't ready to start writing until I was 45. When I wrote “Wizard's First Rule”, I was ready. That doesn't mean that everybody has to be 45. My point is that you have to be able to draw on a well of life experience, and someone who's 13, who's 18, they just don't have that experience. When someone says to me, "I want to write a book but I just can't figure out how to get it down on paper. What do I do?," it makes me want to pull my hair out. If you don't know what to do, then you're not a writer. By default, if you're asking me what to do, you can't do it. I didn't ask anybody what to do…I was simply driven to do it. A writer is a born writer: they're born to do it, they have this internal drive, and they're hungering to tell a story to themselves. That's what makes a true writer: a person who's burning to tell themselves this story.
From the very beginning and still to this day, I just love telling myself stories. I knew what the conclusion to the series [would be] from the very beginning. There are things, startling things that happen in “Confessor” that I've kept to myself for over a decade; I haven't told anybody: my agent, my editor, my wife—no one. Being a storyteller, the most fun is to tell someone a story, and I don't want to spoil it by giving away the punch line. I've kept incredible secrets of what's happened in the series to myself. When I write them, that's when they happen.
I just always wanted to do it, and I decided that I needed to get started. It's like when you decide you need to clean the house. [laughs] There's no one moment where it hits you, you just know you need to clean the house and at some point you just know you need to get started. In my mind, it was a continuing process that was ongoing. The actual sitting down and writing the story was no different than any other stage of preparing the story than any other stage of my life.
Q: Do you have a process you undergo when you prepare to write? For example, some authors have said that when they're not writing, they like to do a lot of reading.Terry Goodkind: Everybody is unique. From what I have been able to gather in terms of how other writers function, I don't operate anything like them. I can't even remember the last time I read a novel. I rarely read novels, partially because I have dyslexia; it takes me a long time to read. I'm a very slow reader, and I like to pay attention to words. Every word has a meaning, and I detest people who skim because they miss the essence of what the writer is saying, they miss all the little clues that give the characters their humanity.
With “Confessor”, people are already saying, "Hey, I bought the book last night and I'm already done with it!" Well, no, you're not. You flipped the pages, you didn't read it. In “Confessor”, I deliberately wrote certain things that people are going to be missed by people who skim. For example, the wizard's rule: if you skim that book, you're going to miss it. I did that on purpose, because it just ticks me off when people say, "I read the book in three minutes, it was great!" They didn't read the book.
Every word that I write is critical. I will sometimes spend half a day on one paragraph because I'm trying to get the exact right words that convey the exact, proper connotations of what the human beings are thinking, doing, whatever. Every single word I consciously intend to be there; they're not accidental. To skim and just kind of hit a few words in every paragraph, you miss all the work that I put in to make those characters humans. So when I read, I read the same way: pay attention to all the words so you understand what the writer intended. Yes, for me it's partially the dyslexia, but I also want to pay close attention.
I remember when I was in a high school creative writing class. The problem I had in school with reading was, they made you read fast. They timed you. Then you had to take a test on the highlights of what happened, and I hated that because it didn't get the essence of what the writer was talking about. You got the facts, but you didn't get the humanity. The creative writing teacher I had at the time opened my eyes to the possibility that I could be a writer. She said, "I don't care how long it takes you to read this, I want to know what you think about what the author had to say." That's always been attitude: when I read, I pay attention to what the author is saying, and that means reading the book, not skimming it.
I don't have time to read a lot of books because writing is just such a long process for me; like I said, it might take me half a day to get a paragraph done properly. I'm writing 15 hours a day, seven days a week, so I don't have time to read other material. Also, I don't read other novels because I don't like to be distracted by how other authors do things. I find it a huge negative to read other novels; it puts things in your head of how they described things, of how they created a story, how they worked a theme, all of those things. I want my work to be totally original. I read nonfiction things because I always want to learn something new.
Some people want to write in boxers, some people want to write in a tuxedo. I don't think it makes any difference. It's their drive to write that makes them a writer.
Q: What was it like to write “Confessor”, knowing that it was the last book in the Sword of Truth series?
Terry Goodkind: I didn't have time for any emotions because the schedule was so incredibly tight. I just didn't have time to ponder anything, I only had time to be in the world, in the book with the characters, writing their story. “Confessor” is a book that I've been waiting over a decade to write. I simply had to get it done. My publisher gave me a schedule for the book that was well outside my comfort zone, so I was writing “Confessor” on the ragged edge. I wrote the last 80 pages in one sitting, total stream of consciousness. I never re-read it, I just sent it off to the publisher. What you read in “Confessor”, the last 80 pages of the book, is what came up on my computer in one sitting, no editing, nothing. That's a decade worth of planning and just writing it out. It's raw Goodkind [laughs].
Q: Now that the Sword of Truth has concluded, where do you see your work taking you? Perhaps more adventures in the Sword of Truth universe, or something entirely new...?Terry Goodkind: When you finish “Confessor”, you'll understand better what I'm saying, but the Sword of Truth series is, in essence, a prelude to what comes next. It's a prologue to all the things in my head. There are stories that branch out from this point into all sorts of directions. There are many things I would like to write. I would like to write more about this universe that I've created; it's fun being there every day. On the other hand, I get incredibly frustrated by the realities of the marketplace when you're labeled as a fantasy writer; it's very debilitating for your career, because everything you do is judged on that scale.
I'm not writing about fantasy. And you recognize that! You recognize that I'm dealing with larger issues and the things that are central to all people. I want to write to an audience that includes all people, and fantasy limits that due to its mechanics: the mechanics of where it's placed in bookstores; the mechanics of the covers; the mechanics of the word 'fantasy' on a book; all of those things [make it more difficult to] reach a broader audience. I would like to write contemporary novels. The stories I'm telling are not fantasy-driven, they're character-driven, and the characters I want to write about could be set in any world. I'd like to address a broader audience.
However, I also like writing about this universe, the Sword of Truth, and I may write many more books [within it].
Q: You've often said that your books serve as the missing link between our world and the world of myth. What exactly do you mean?
Terry Goodkind: Until you read “Confessor”, you won't know what I'm talking about in terms of that statement. Stories are something that have always been instrumental to human beings. When cavemen sat around a fire, I'm sure they told stories. Stories have always been the way people have passed their knowledge and their culture on to other people. It's the way they describe their understanding of their world and their existence. Stories are central to the human experience, and help us understand how we fit into the world.
At the same time, a story is a representation of the author's values. When you share those values, when you have the same values as the author, you're reading a story and seeing your values which may be difficult to understand in daily life because they take place over such a long range. When a reader sees those values realized in a story, it energizes him into believing in himself and understanding that yes, he can be the best person he can be, he can achieve goals and overcome difficulties. The reader sees someone else do those things in a story and gives him hope, courage, the strength to struggle on.
There are parts of stories, the parts that contain myth, that have always fascinated me. How did myth get into the storytelling tradition? The Sword of Truth series is my explanation of one way that myth became part of our world. When you read “Confessor”, you will understand where myth came from. It's a mind-blowing concept, and I just think it's the coolest thing ever. I don't know if anyone has ever done anything like this before. When you read “Confessor”, you understand the larger meaning of what I've been doing. Like I said, I never tell anybody what I'm up to, I just keep working and telling myself stories.
There are things that have happened throughout the series that have all been working toward the final book, the conclusion of “Confessor”. It's kind of like foreshadowing: you don't realize it until later, but those things are all there for a reason. When you get to “Confessor”, all of those elements that have been in the back of your mind all the way are suddenly brought to the forefront, that “Confessor” is the keystone of this entire series. And you see the series in an entirely new light. All the books that you liked before, you realize the part they played in a large context, not just in Richard's life and in his struggle with the Imperial Order, but his whole world, and our whole world, and how they fit together. I just think it's the coolest thing ever. It's a jaw-dropping experience to see what happens, and I think it's something that is really going to be a delight for readers.
In that way, I guess I can understand why people skim, because some stories are so exciting, you just have to know what happens next, you just can't wait to know and you have to go as fast as you can because you want to know what happens. I think “Confessor” is a book that people will want to go back and read again, because after they've satisfied their overwhelming, all-consuming, burning ambition to know the outcome, they'll want to go back and re-experience all of the details. It's a really fun ride.Q: One aspect of your series that was given center stage in “Confessor” was the game of Ja'La. What was your inspiration in the creation of this brutal sport?
Terry Goodkind: Well, that's a very difficult question because of the word inspiration. That's not the way I write. I write from broad concepts and I think up a story to fit the concept that I'm trying to illustrate. For example, if you want to illustrate the concept of individual liberty, it's too broad of a concept to just say, "Freedom is good, slavery is bad." That has no emotional impact. You need to tell a story that gets that emotion across. That's what “Faith of the Fallen” was. It was a story derived to illustrate that broad theme, so what I'm doing is illustrating a broad theme.
Ja'La was a very conscious, deliberate goal on my part to get across certain things about the characters. I wanted to illustrate how, in a society that is repressive and mindless, and values mediocrity above all else, and values no one excelling, an enforced equality where no one is allowed to be better than anyone else, where no one is allowed to do their best—I wanted to illustrate how people find outlets for their desire for excellence. Ja'La is that outlet for people, to see someone rise up and do better. It's done in a controlled context within that society so that it gives a release that diverts people's attention from their own life, from their own desire to rise up and do better. It's like a pressure release valve on a pressure cooker that keeps the society from exploding.
At the same time, within that game, the emperor [Jagang] has his own ego invested, and the interplay in all of those things is what I wanted to show. When someone comes along who isn't going to play by the rules, who's going to lay down the law even though he's a prisoner and not allowed to have his own freedom—the freedom comes through in the way he behaves. I wanted to show that even in that kind of situation, an individual can accomplish something on their own even though they're restricted in many ways. The Ja'La games served a lot of different purposes.
Q: Does Ja'La reflect any personal views you have of sports in general?
Terry Goodkind: Human beings are driven to succeed. Sports are, in a sense, a very simplified story of overcoming obstacles to achieve a goal. For example, young people need to be able to practice life, they need to be able to practice challenges and accomplishing things, and how to overcome difficulties. In a hunting society, they might have been taught how to shoot a bow and arrow, and they learn to hunt by those activities. Sitting around campfires and passing on stories about great hunts was a way of passing on experience.
In the society we have now, stories help by being part of that function. Because of the deterioration in modern literature, as well as things like T.V. and movies, those values are relegated to a bin. The destruction of values leaves young people no outlet for how to learn about life, to learn about overcoming challenges. As a consequence, they turn away from reading because it doesn't fulfill that basic human need. They turn to things like video games. In video games, you create your own story. You're the young hunter, or maybe you're going on a quest, and you're overcoming obstacles and difficulties in order to achieve success.
Society has stripped away so much of the challenge of life. Everybody's got forced self-worth, and you can't hand people self-worth; self-worth is earned. In stories, and in movies, in school, in T.V., you're handed self-worth. They teach that as a human being, it's your right to have self-worth. As a consequence, people don't know what it's like to achieve self-worth, so they turn to things like video games to learn the accomplishment of overcoming difficulty and succeeding. Games are the same kind of thing. Watching games allow you to participate in sharing the mental challenge of, what's the next play, how are we going to get by these guys to score a point?It's all part of life. It's about learning to strategize, learning to analyze, to figure out and perceive the plan, a cause and effect. So much of all of those things are taken away in life, so people turn to sports. It's just like the Old World in the Sword of Truth series. There's no way for people to experience those things except through sports. In societies that are stripped of values, they turn to things like sports because it's the only place where they can see values exercised, even if those values are simplistic.
Q: The cover art for most of your novels is extraordinary. How did you come to work with Keith Parkinson?
Terry Goodkind: I got Keith Parkinson because I was so disgusted, angry, and infuriated with the original cover of “Wizard's First Rule” that I almost quit writing for public consumption. I was livid. The cover on “Wizard's First Rule” did not represent in any way what I was writing about. It represented a juvenile, immature vision that reflected nothing about the book. It was complete deception by the publisher, trying to fool people into thinking that I was writing for adolescent males. I was absolutely livid, and I just about tore up my contract and said, "That's it, I'm not writing anymore books." My editor said, "If you don't like this, then who do you like?" I said, "Keith Parkinson."
Keith did the cover of “Stone of Tears”, but he couldn't do the cover of “Blood of the Fold”, so we were back to the idiotic covers. After that, Keith did all the covers. Throughout the series, my goal has been to steer the covers away from traditional fantasy covers because I'm not writing fantasy. I'm accidentally published by a fantasy publisher so I get thrown in with that genre, but my books are no more fantasy than a detective novel is a "gun book." What makes me nuts about the fantasy genre is that, unlike any other genre, people become obsessed and focused on irrelevant things. For example, in a detective novel, if a detective has a Snub Nose 38, no one asks him questions like "Can we know more about the Snub Nose 38?" or "Have you ever thought of doing some kind of special story just about the Snub Nose 38?" It's a distraction.
To me, fantasy is no more important than the romance, the intrigue, the political maneuvering, historical fiction elements—all the other kinds of things in other books. I like those elements, and I enjoy writing them, but they're just elements in telling a human story. I don't believe fantasy is valid unless it's used to illustrate other important themes. Magic in and of itself is no more interesting than a rock laying on the side of the road.
The cover of fantasy art tends to illustrate those themes of those authors who are writing those kinds of books. I'm not one of them, and I don't want to be seen as one of them. From the beginning, my goal has been to steer the cover art away from those representational images. Keith became a really good friend, and he would do covers before I even wrote the books. I was describing to him what a cover needed to look like, and then as an artist, I could convey to him very accurately what I wanted him to paint. He and I got along very well and had a great time designing covers. My goal was to pull out of Keith something more noble than the typical red dragon.
For example, with “Faith of the Fallen”, I need you to paint a painting that illustrated the nobility of the human spirit. He said, "Oh, gee, don't give me anything too hard, Terry!" [laughs] My goal has always been to write above that kind of representational art. Even with covers like “Temple of the Winds” where you see a guy [on the cover] holding a sword; that, to me, is a really cool piece of art, I love it—but as a cover, I don't like it, because it turns off vast amounts of readers. You automatically disqualify the book for consideration by much of the public. And these are people who love these types of books, but the art doesn't convey to them that they like it.I've gotten most of my readers by word of mouth. My typical reader, probably 80-90 percent of my readers, don't read fantasy. I'm the only "fantasy" author they read, otherwise for them it's general fiction. They recognize that the books aren't fantasy books, they're books about people, they're character-driven. My goal has always been to change the cover art in a way that represents the spirit of what the book is about. With Chainfire, Phantom, and Confessor, those are the first books that are truly my vision of what I want the covers to be. I've finally achieved the kind of covers that I want, that give you a hint of the mystery, romance, intrigue, and even a little bit of the fantasy elements in the book, but at the same time, it illustrates how the books are meant for all people, for all people who just like stories.
After “Temple of the Winds”, I got contractual cover control. Keith and I designed the Chainfire template of how those [three] books looks. When you see Chainfire, Phantom, and Confessor, you're seeing my pure vision, unadulterated by what anyone else thinks it should be. Keith and I designed everything down to the smallest detail.
Q: As popular as your books are, you've never won any awards, though you have been nominated several times. How does that make you feel? I get the feeling that you don't even care about awards.
Terry Goodkind: This is the first time I've ever heard that I've been nominated for any award. I don't know what I've been nominated for, I'm...I'm completely unaware! I've heard of the Hugo Award...I don't know any other kinds. I could care less about awards. My award is a reader opening their wallet and giving up their hard-earned money to read my stories, and more than that, giving up their time. As I said, time is mankind's greatest value. It's the only thing you really have. When a reader gives up a part of their life to allow me to tell them a story, they're giving me something precious. That's my award. Doing my best to satisfy myself, and ultimately my readers—that's the only award I care about.
Q: What are your thoughts on Sam Raimi converting Wizard's First Rule into a television series?
Terry Goodkind: Sam Raimi is a person who believes in heroes. His Spider-Man movies are obviously about a heroic person who's rising up to challenges. Sam was instrumental in making that movie about a real person. He understood that [Spider-Man] is about a real individual who had to rise to challenges and be heroic. He strongly believes in the sacredness in heroes for all of us, for kids and adults alike. That's something that really drew him to Wizard's First Rule: he loves the characters; he loves the heroic aspects of [the story]. The reason he wants it done for T.V. is because he says that if he were to do it as a two hour movie, it would ruin the story. He has so much respect for the story that the last thing in the world he wants to do is ruin it; he wants to do a television format.
Right now he's working on who [the audience] it's going to be for and what format will it take, whether it's going to be an hour [per week] miniseries. He's in the early planning stages, and he wants me to be intimately involved in all aspects of it—more involved than I have time to be! He's told me he wants this to be true to my vision, because if I love it, my fans will love it, and if my readers love it, the general audience will love it. He thinks my involvement [in the project] is integral to its success, and he wants me to be there for every stage of it—and I plan to be.
He's just one of the nicest people I've ever met, and I'm excited to have the opportunity to work with him. He's the first person whom I've encountered that I had enough respect for, and who I thought could do the job, that really excited me.
Q: Did your surgery in 2006 affect your writing?Terry Goodkind: The short answer is: no. I had a defect in a major artery that supplies blood to my heart, and it would have killed me within a couple of weeks. They had to bypass that defect, which was like a kink in a garden hose. They used an artery from my chest, and it was successful. They said I have no heart disease or anything like that, and in fact the surgeon said it was a pleasure to operate on someone who was healthy for a change. [laughs] It was just one of those things that, had I not been as healthy as I was, it would have killed me. The defect was in what they call the widow artery. It's the artery that, when you have a heart attack, you can't be recovered, so I was fortunate in that they were able to fix it in time. Having open heart surgery was no fun, but all it did was reinforce everything that I believe.
My wife is the most important thing to me, and she was my guardian angel. I knew she was right there standing over me, watching over things, and so I knew that I could be put to sleep and she would take care of everything, and would be there for me. When you open your eyes and the people you love are there to smile at you and say "Hi," that's what matters. The other stuff is all fun, but the important things are the values I write about. It didn't change my values, it just proved to me that those simple things such as the people around you who you care about, and who care about you—that's all that really matters. That's the joy of life.
Q: It's such a rare and beautiful thing to have that, to have a real connection with another human being.
Terry Goodkind: Yeah, and that's one of the things that's been so important to me throughout the whole series: to write about a caring relationship in which the people are very real. They're realistic about each other, how they can get angry at each other over something, but it doesn't mean they don't love one another. Even when they're angry, they maintain their respect. They may be angry at the situation, at what someone did, but they don't hate the other person. Love is still the basis of their relationship. I wanted to show how beautiful connection can be.
There are so many people that think, "I'll be with this person for a while, and if we don't like each other, we'll part," and they mistake momentary pleasure for human joy. In so doing, they make a trade in which they end up being the loser. They sacrifice a part of their life that they'll never get back for an experience that is ultimately not worthwhile.
Q: I'd like to talk to you about your personal philosophy: objectivism. What led you to become an objectivist?
Terry Goodkind: Ayn Rand is the inventor of the objectivist philosophy. I consider her the greatest thinker since Aristotle. She made advances in the world of philosophy that no one since Aristotle has made. Her thinking on concept formation is truly groundbreaking and explains so much about philosophy that's never been explained before. I'm much more fascinated by her non-objective writing on philosophy than on her fiction. Her fiction is kind of a way to popularize her ideas, to put them in a story form, like I was talking about, how sitting around a campfire, you passed around your tribe's philosophy to the younger generation.
Her books like Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology are just incredibly ground-breaking, profound works on understanding how the human mind works. Objectivism is her philosophy, and it's always been my philosophy, too, but when I discovered Ayn Rand, she was able to put things into concepts that made them easier for me to integrate my own thinking.
Ayn Rand said, 'My philosophy, in essence is the concept of Man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.' Reality, A=A, is necessary to the pursuit of life. When you're designing an airplane, you have to use the facts of reality to make the airplane fly. You can't decide, "I wish if I designed a wing this other way, it would keep the plane aloft." Your wishes aren't going to be fulfilled, and reality will bite you when you try to fly the airplane. So to achieve happiness in your life, to achieve your goals, you must use the true nature of reality. It was Francis Bacon [English philosopher] who said, "Nature to be commanded must first be obeyed." You have to be able to use truth to achieve your goals. You're not going to ever achieve them by hoping that success will come to you; you need to use reality to accomplish goals.I'm an objectivist, and I have a lot of objectivist thinking through Richard [Rahl]. I'm not trying to teach objectivism in books; these [the Sword of Truth books] are just fun stories. The main characters are Richard and Kahlan. They think like I do because they're my heroes. They are people I admire and look up to, and I have them reflect the kind of thinking that, to me, is heroic thinking. So while I use objectivist principles in the stories I'm telling, that's not my purpose. My purpose is to tell a fun story, not to be a philosophy teacher.
Q: Actually, it was your views expressed primarily through Richard, Kahlan, and Nicci that persuaded me to look further into the philosophy of objectivism.
Terry Goodkind: I'm glad to hear that. You cannot separate philosophy from art. Every brushstroke, every word, every piece of clay that you sculpt, is driven by your philosophy. If you have a philosophy of mankind as decrepit and evil, you have medieval art, where you show mankind as this ulcerous, ineffectual creature. When you view mankind as noble and heroic, you have reached [art]. The philosophy of a culture as a whole drives art, and an artist individually drives what he does.
If you believe in heroic individuals, you write about heroic individuals. If you think that life is purposeless and meaningless, you write stories like that—and your books are meaningless and pointless, and miserable. That's the problem: too many authors are selected to be published who believe that life is meaningless and miserable, and we have too many miserable, meaningless forms of entertainment out there. That's why people are turning away from reading and turning instead to things where they don't have to endure that kind of misery—sports and video games. [laughs]
Q: While I do enjoy video games, it has always saddened me that the arrival of a new game, or a new movie, or some sort of new-fangled form of entertainment causes consumers to line up around city blocks in anticipation, but literature no longer has that effect, at least not in comparison to other mediums.
Terry Goodkind: Absolutely, I completely agree. I don't think that it's a good thing, and I don't think that it's necessarily worthwhile, I'm just trying to explain that it's [sports and video games] the last vestige of winning and losing that [people] are allowed to engage in. In life, everything is tried to be made into a zero sum game, like playing soccer, where a tie can be a goal of the game, or maybe a game where no one is allowed to win because someone would feel bad. It's too bad that people are driven to those things, it's too bad that people can't find [victory] in other things; they're driven to movies, and T.V., and sports.
Q: Back on the subject of objectivism, I've always had some difficulty in fully understanding it, because it seems riddled with contradictions, something I don't believe can exist. Objectivism states that I have the right to pursue my own happiness, but not at the expense of someone else's; that also works vice versa.
Yet it seems that in any given scenario, someone's happiness will always be sacrificed for another person's.
Terry Goodkind: You have no right to anyone else's life. So, you have no right, for example, to rob someone. That's their life, you have no right to, say, kill them. If you choose to sacrifice, if you see someone drowning in a river and you decide to jump in and try to save them at the risk of your own life, that's perfectly fine—but you shouldn't be required to sacrifice yourself. 'Required sacrifice' is another term for 'slavery'. When you're required to sacrifice for others, that's saying that your life has no value except to serve others. Who's deciding whose life is worth more than yours? That's the state, or religion, and they're saying that you have no value as an individual; your only value is to sacrifice yourself [for the greater good].Q: So if I see you drowning in a river, I can choose to jump in and try to save you, but I don't have to?
Terry Goodkind: Yes, exactly.
Q: But that's where I grow confused. If I choose not to save you, aren't I sacrificing your happiness for mine?
Terry Goodkind: Well, the person has no obligation to sacrifice or risk their life [to save someone]. It's not their responsibility to save you. If you volunteer for a search and rescue duty, and that's your job, then you've taken on that responsibility. But as an individual just walking along, you could lose your life jumping into the river. You don't have to sacrifice your life to save someone else's.
But, these thought experiments are kind of distracting questions. These situations will never happen in your life for the most part. What people [religion and state] try to do is, they try to take those examples and say "You should help another person" and then they bring that down to the real issue of what they want: for you to sacrifice your life for other people, sometimes in other ways [than death]. For example, some people want you to give up your income to give to other people who don't have the ability or desire to, and that's the real practical application: collectivism. With a collectivist sort of mentality—I don't believe in that.
Q: But is it considered a sacrifice of someone's happiness if I allow them to die?
Terry Goodkind: You're not sacrificing their happiness if they drown, because you're not the one who threw them in the river. If you are the one who threw them in the river, then yeah [you sacrificed their happiness]. People are dying all over the world every day, all the time. It's not your job to save them. By not jumping into the river, you're not causing [them to die].
You have to make a judgment on your own abilities. If you can jump into the river and you're a really good swimmer, then you're going to feel more of an obligation to [try to save them]. But if you're afraid of the water, it's going to be a true, sincere risk to your life...why should you sacrifice your life to save this person? You're not the one who threw them into the water. You're not obligated to give your life away to save that person.
Q: So it does all come down to choice. Even if I'm a very capable swimmer but don't want to risk dying, that's okay?
Terry Goodkind: Yes. See, you're getting into really esoteric areas of philosophy, and the problem is, collectivists use those arguments to take you off track. They use extreme examples that are never going to happen in your life to cause you, on a daily basis, to sacrifice your own happiness, your future, because of some example that's concocted. The real question is, are you, on a daily basis, going to sacrifice your happiness, your existence, for other people? And why are those other people more important than you?
This is the only life you're going to have. Every moment that goes by, you're never going to have back again. When you sacrifice part of your life, you're exchanging it for something. For example, if you give your time to you children, it's because you value your children. You've chosen to give that time to something that brings value to your life, that brings a reward to your existence. If you like ice cream and you decide to sacrifice your time to drive to an ice cream shop, it's because the value of that ice cream is worthwhile to you. You've made a trade: part of your existence toward something you value.
The successful pursuit of values is essential to the continuation of life. In your life, the values you pursue enable you to continue to exist. The value of a job so that you can have money to have shelter, clothes, and food... those are necessary for your survival. If someone says to you, "We're taking away the money you've earned to give to someone else," they are taking a value away from you that threatens your survival, because that [the money] is what you have given part of your life to achieve in order to continue your existence. Another person has no right to say, "We're going to sacrifice you so that this other person can live." Why is this other person's life more valuable than yours? Who are they to decide what happens to your existence?There's no such thing as "the common good". It's not "common", it's about individuals. Every action, every sacrifice is imposed, is on the behalf of other individuals. You don't have the right to demand that another person sacrifice their existence. Where are you going to draw the line? Once you give the authority of your existence over to a church, or a government, or a state, you've given them the authority to divvy up your life. They can say, "He can afford to give up 10 percent of what I earn to help other people." If you want to, fine, but why should that be imposed upon you by someone else? Don't forget, that person can decide tomorrow to say, "Your continued existence is detrimental to other people's existence. You're harming the environment, you're using too many resources—were going to have you put to death."
Nothing and no one has the right to take your life. Intellectual property is also a part of the value you have created. All of the effort you put into creating a living belongs to you; it doesn't belong to anyone else, and there's nothing that can change that. That's the problem: certain people are driven by the hatred of mankind. Human beings are the only species that can hate their own existence. There are people who are driven by hatred. It comes from indoctrination in the form of religion that might tell you to blow yourself up so you can kill other people, it comes from misunderstanding the purpose of your own existence. What happens is, philosophy becomes corrupted by people treating philosophy like a smorgasbord. They say, "Well, I believe this part, but I also believe this." You can't go to a philosophical smorgasbord and pick out what you want; reality is what it is.
What people do is, they ascribe values to things. A tree is a value to human beings for a variety of reasons: because it makes oxygen, because you can turn it into a piano, because you can burn it in the fireplace to keep warm. So a tree has value to a human being, but a tree does not have value intrinsically, in the absence of human beings. You can't ascribe values to things that are nonhuman. You can't say that a rock in and of itself, without human beings has value. Value for what? It has a value if a human being needs a rock to build a foundation for a house, but it can't have a value independent of mankind.
Nature cannot have a value independent of mankind, and this is what the environmental movement has become: a religion. They've ascribed value to nature absent mankind. They've ascribed value to nature, and so what happens is, whatever you do to harm nature, people say, "You've harmed this good thing, that makes mankind bad." They're using that line of philosophy to hate mankind, because mankind is detrimental to nature. They've turned nature into a religion, making into something that is holy without reality. If nature has value, it's for how mankind can use it. It's incumbent upon human beings to respect nature for their own rational self-interests.
For example, poisoning a river is bad not because it hurts nature, because nature has no value in and of itself. It's bad because it [poisoning the river] hurts mankind. You poison the river and other people are going to get poisoned, and then you're infringing on their right to exist. You want clean air because you need clean air to breathe, to leave longer. Respect for the environment meant should be based on mankind's [needs].
That's in part what I'm writing about [in the Sword of Truth series]: the struggle between humans who are driven by a love of life, and people driven by a hatred of life. Sure, there are bad things about life, but that's the purpose of struggling: to change those things, to make them better. That's what I've tried to show through the books: that you can be better, you can rise up and live a life, but there are people who are mindlessly devoted to hatred, to the destruction of life, and they use any excuse to justify their own hatred, and that's all it is: hatred for their own existence, for their own inability to live their own life. The things they come up with, like sacrificing for the greater good, are just ways of lowering the standard of everyone's life.Q: In addition to objectivism, faith is another theme in your books. The Imperial Order uses faith as an excuse to rape, pillage, and murder. They don't care what happens in the mortal world because, according to them, eternal rewards await them in the afterlife.
Do you view faith as the antithesis of reason? Because there are religious people who use their faith for good, and then there are those who fly planes into buildings.
Terry Goodkind: Faith is merely the excuse for force. Faith cannot be supported by reality, it has to be supported by force. Faith is the precursor to force. You start out with some lovely story, and when people don't believe it, you end up having to kill them. You kill the people who refuse to believe so that you can ensure the continuation of the faith.
If someone has faith that every star they see in the night sky is the soul of some saint, they can believe that, that can be their faith, and they don't have to go out and kill someone to make them believe it. But if you want to force other people to believe that, you can try to coerce them into believing it, try to force them into believing it. If your faith is strong enough and you feel that your credibility relies on forcing people to believe that [your faith], then you end up with a mass inquisition. It depends on the individual's need to believe in that faith. The more they need to have that faith be real to them, the more they need to have others believe it.
For example, take the need for people to help others, to contribute some of their income to help the welfare of other Americans. That's their faith, so they create the income tax system. If you're not willing to go along with their faith and go along with the greater good, then they come with guns and take you to jail. They are willing to force to enforce that faith. So, Americans are, in essence, sacrificing part of their life into slavery to others. That faith is enforced by guns and jails. We're not willingly giving them part of our income; people don't like paying taxes, and justifiably so, because they're sacrificing part of their life to other people. It's this concept of sacrificing for the greater good, and that faith is being enforced by a government who has guns and jails.
You can happily pay your taxes and say "There's no force involved, I'm paying my taxes." But you better believe that if you don't, they'll be happy to come and take [your tax money] from you.
Q: So you consider that to be like tithing in a church? Being instructed to donate a certain percentage of your income, for example?
Terry Goodkind: Right, and if you don't do it, then you become increasingly urged to do it, either through lectures or having people turn away from you and regard you as stingy, having people talk behind your back and how you're not doing your part. There are so many subtle and not-so-subtle ways that faith is enforced. The church that believes that you should tithe may never actually come and take it from you at gunpoint like the government will, but they have their own ways of enforcing their faith—like telling you you're going to burn in hell [laughs].
Q: Given your philosophical views, what is your opinion on the War on Terror?
Terry Goodkind: There is no such thing as a "War on Terror." This is another example of philosophy corrupting action. You can't have a war on a name. "Hate crime" is another one of those things: either it's a crime, or it's not. Either someone is doing something wrong, or they're not. We're not having a war on terror, we're having a war on Islamic fundamentalism. We're afraid to name the enemy, and in [that fear], we give them strength. When you can't name the enemy, you've already lost. When you're afraid to see who it is you're fighting, you've already lost.Take, for example, what we're doing in Iraq. The basic thing we're trying to do is enforce democracy. Democracy is a free-floating concept. There's no goodness [inherent] in democracy. Gang rape is democracy in action. Why should we enforce democracy? Why should we have Americans die so [Iraq] can elect a government who wants to kill us? It's stupid. Force should be used by a government just like it should be used by an individual: to prevent someone else from harm. That's the only valid, moral, ethical purpose of force: to protect your life. If somebody's trying to protect you, you should protect your life.
We have Americans dying over there to enforce democracy so that [Iraq] can vote to kill us. It's absurd. There's nothing holy about democracy. The sidetrack of adopting slogans like "making the world safe for democracy"... it's a free-floating concept; there's nothing good [inherent in] democracy. Democracy can be good if it's supported by other ethical values; justice, for example, and not hurting other people. But we're not enforcing a moral form of democracy; we're just supporting the idea of democracy in general, and there's nothing more about democracy in and of itself.
The war on terror is merely theatrics to convince the American people that something is being done. All you have to do is go to an airport to see how philosophy has caused a breakdown in effective action. Airport security is pure theatrics to convince people that something is being done, and it ignores the reality of the nature of the threat. We have [security] people searching obvious non-threats because they don't want to be seen as profiling. When you're looking for a burglar, and the burglar is two-foot-ten, and you put out an APB for that burglar, that's not profiling, it's a description of the subject. The authorities should know who they're fighting.
When you say you're fighting terror, there's no such thing as "terror" as an enemy. You're doing gang rape on 80 year-old Swedish grandmothers because you're afraid to say that the enemy are Middle Eastern men. This distraction, this forced equality, is ignoring of reality. Philosophy is at the cause of this because they're ignoring reality in order to adapt meaningless principles. The philosophy is going to get us all killed.
In World War II, in Japan, there were no deaths of Americans by insurgence, and the reason [for that] is because America, at that time, had the courage to crush those who were enforcing evil ideas. We may have had to kill a lot of people, but it was the only way to crush those evil ideas. And because we crushed those evil ideas, an entire culture in Japan grew up to create a great, noble, free people who have become an engine of freedom and an engine of economy in the world.
You either crush evil or you don't. If you allow evil to co-exist with you, it's only going to grow. We're allowing evil to grow. We're too timid to attack evil, and make no mistake: the Islamic world wants to kill us, and sooner or later, an atomic bomb is going to go off in the United States because we don't even have the courage to name the enemy.
Q: You make an excellent point. I've always believed that we're attacking a word, a phrase, more than anything or anyone else.
Terry Goodkind: Yes, exactly. It's this philosophy that they've adapted from a derivative of Kantian philosophy, and this is what's taught at a lot of our universities. The basic premise is that we can't know reality, because every person sees the world through their own eyes, and they're ill-equipped to discern reality. What you see is different than what I see, and our eyes are what tell us what's real. Because we each see things differently, none of us are able to judge what's real and what's not real, and because we can't tell what's real, we can't know what reality is, and [if that's the case] it means that we can't know right from wrong, and that means that none of us can judge what's right and what's wrong.
Therefore, all culture is morally equivalent, because we're [none of us] equipped to judge right and wrong. Moral equivalency is the root cause of guys standing at airline gates, date raping Swedish grandmothers. No culture is better or worse than the other culture; all beliefs are equal, and that's not true. That's a failure to recognize the nature of reality. In World War II, we realized that the Nazis and the Japanese were devoted at evil ideas that were aimed at the destruction of mankind, and we crushed those evil ideas so that they couldn't come here and kill us.
Today, we're unwilling to crush those people who want to kill us, and by using [phrases like] "War on Terror", it's our way of saying, "Well, we can't name the enemy because all cultures are equal," so we can't say "It's Islamic fundamentalism that wants to kill us" because all cultures are morally equivalent. It's that derivative of Kantian philosophy that causes people to hold those beliefs, and those beliefs will eventually result in our destruction. People can't survive if they can't recognize evil.
If we can't name the enemy, how are we going to fight them? We end up frisking people at the airport and missing the real threat, because all that is, is a show for the American public so that they think that something is being done. Meanwhile, real terrorists know how to get around those things; they know how to get jobs as baggage handlers, and get onto the planes and plant bombs, and all these other things. We're diverting attention from the real problem by coming up with all these theatrics. What they're trying to do is criminalize individuals rather than name the philosophies that are responsible for those beliefs.
In a way, the Sword of Truth series has been my way of railing against the stupidity of which way the world is going. In the great sweep of history, mankind goes between nobility and darkness. You see the nobility of the Greek civilization, the renaissance—those kinds of time periods where great motivations of mankind are put toward the betterment of mankind. And then you see other points in history, such as the Dark Age, where mankind slid into a perverse thinking. I view the world in those great arcs of history, and the great movement of that pendulum between nobility and darkness—and I see the world today on the decline into darkness. I believe we're on the brink of another dark age. The Sword of Truth series is a wake-up call for people to pay attention to what's going on.
I don't know if those great movements of history can be halted. I think that the war on terror is just one minor indication of the many, many corrupt ways of thinking that are leading us into this next Dark Age.
Q: Mr. Goodkind, thank you so much for this interview. You really inspire me, both as a writer and as a human being. I really appreciate you taking the time to talk with me today.
Terry Goodkind: Thank you. I've always felt that, for me, writing novels is my noblest ambition; it's what I've always wanted to do. It's a fun thing, to tell stories that inspire people in so many different ways and on so many different levels. Every book has a theme, and the theme of the Sword of Truth series is, your life is your own; rise up and live it. That I inspire people to do that, to me, is the most gratifying thing because I touch people's lives.
That's how valuable stories are: you can touch lives, you can make connections, and...what a cool job, to be able to do something that wakes people up and hopefully helps them make their own lives happier. What could be better than that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
