Talk:Terry Goodkind

Book standard link

I've looked through the two articles in reference to the miniseries, and the only bit of info I can find that is in the "Book standard" link and not the "Comingsoon.net" is the following info:

"Phantom, the latest in the ten-book series, was released last week, with the 11th set for release in early 2007. The ninth book, Chainfire, was released in January 2005 and has sold more than 235,000 in hardcover and mass-market editions, as tracked by Nielsen BookScan."

Aside from that, the information that I can see is essentially identical, and the comingsoon.net article actually has more detail than the Book standard. The only info in the above quote is about specific books, and though it could be on those pages I don't see a need for the info in this one. WP:EL nutshell is Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article, which was why I removed it in the first place (i.e. if the info is already there, why a second link?). If there is any further info that I've missed in the link, it's better added to the page and the Book standard tacked on as a reference, as per If the site or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source first, also from WP:EL.

WLU 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not picking a fight by removing the link. As I said above - WP:EL recommends keeping external links to a minimum and including the information as a reference if possible. Since there is already a reference for this information on the page it is unnecessary duplication. Further, since the info is essentially identical, it probably came from the same press release. There's no point having it twice that I can see - what is the justification for including duplicate information on the page? WLU 12:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And I quote "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are merit able, accessible and appropriate to the article:

I see merit. You do not. It is another source and has more info. It is not a problem that it remains. It violates no policy; it is not anything that you read. Seeing as how in your own words you cannot stand Goodkind or his works...that leaves only one other possablity? So again I ask that you stop nit picking to start a fight. It is not the link itself (Seeing as how its been there for a good long time...), but rather me is the only reason you want to remove it. As you have said to others you'll agree with them, but not mystar.

I see many other precedence of similar information being provided on other pages as external links, so again, having the links is not a violation, and is in fact allowable. You have made countless statements since your starting here, you hate Goodkind and wish to smear his name (and mine), so it is more than abundantly clear that the only reason you do edit Goodkind's pages is to try and nit pick and start a fight. As much as you abhor Goodkind one can easily make that leap< As we can indeed see it is not a voilation at all Mystar 13:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is another source with the same information, coming from the same press release - it's even got the same quote. What is the extra info and merit that the link you keep reverting has? I couldn't find it, nothing that relates to this page. A short statement of this 'important information' rather than another accusation of bad faith would shut me up. And if it is adding extra info, it should be a reference, not an external link. And it is the 'minimum' of the EL policy that I'm pointing to - having an extra link that says the same thing as one of the references is not a minimum, it is superfluous. It may be meritalbe, accessible and appropriate, but it is duplication. This link adds nothing to the reader that is not already there. The reason I removed it last week was because of this edit, which brought my attention to the external links section. Notice that I did not try to remove the interview information because it adds to the page something that couldn't be in a reference but does provide something valuable. It is an appropriate external link.

If you see precedents in other pages, perhaps those links should be removed. Which pages did you see it on, I'll have a look and let you know if I think it should be removed for the same reason, or explain why I think it's valuable to keep. WLU 14:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And let you terrorize those pages? I think not. As I said it does nto say it is forbiden or cannot stay.Mystar 18:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC) (moved from here Thats odd, I see where I clearly stated it was due to "content" and that it is allowable under the very policy that you listed. Again I ask you to stop trying to create drama where none exists. WP:EL clearly states that it is "ok" but to be careful not to add too much, as I addressed on the talk page. You seem to be under the impression that only your opinion has any validity. Please try not to engage in a witch hunt Mystar 02:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not addressed what content within the link is useful to the article. From what I can see, there is nothing in the external link which adds to the article. There is no added content and added benefit to having the link in the page, it is just taking up memory. You say it adds content to the article, but I can't see what it is adding. And if it is useful content, it should be integrated as a reference. The reason I think it should be removed is because I can't see where it could go as a reference, barring a second reference for the SoT being turned into a series. The policy says meritable links. Because the information is already covered in the 'press release' reference, the external link has no merit, it's just duplication. WLU 14:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

External link

Here is a breakdown of the verbatim material from the coming soon link and the book standard link:

http://www.bookstandard.com/bookstandard/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002878399

1 Spider-Man director Sam Raimi, and his producing partner Joshua Donen, will develop a miniseries based on Terry Goodkind’s bestselling “Sword of Truth” series. Production will begin within a year, with Wizard’s First Rule, the first book in the series.

2 Goodkind, who has previously turned down film offers, was struck by Raimi and Donen’s idea for a miniseries.

3 “It’s a dream come true to work with someone of such remarkable vision, talent and ability,” Goodkind said in a statement released today. “Given Sam’s sincere love for these stories and his determination to only make great films, this mini series will be a watershed event.”

4 Phantom, the latest in the ten-book series, was released last week, with the 11th set for release in early 2007. The ninth book, Chainfire, was released in January 2005 and has sold more than 235,000 in hardcover and mass-market editions, as tracked by Nielsen BookScan.

5 Raimi is currently wrapping Spider-Man 3, with Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst.

---

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/tvnews.php?id=15750

A "Spider-Man" franchise director Sam Raimi and his producing partner Joshua Donen have optioned rights for Terry Goodkind's bestselling "Sword of Truth" adventure series, published by Tor Books.

B Having been approached by Hollywood a number of times over the past decade, Goodkind was never convinced that his 400,000 word novels could be successfully compressed into worthwhile feature films. In a meeting at the author's home, the renowned director and producer instead conceived of a groundbreaking mini-series. Within two hours Goodkind was sold on the concept and negotiations commenced. Ten months later the deal was finally concluded.

C "It's a dream come true to work with someone of such remarkable vision, talent, and ability," Goodkind said. "Given Sam's sincere love for these stories and his determination to only make great films, this mini-series will be a watershed event."

D All of Goodkind's novels have been international bestsellers. Translated into 20 foreign languages, there are over 10 million copies in print. The "Sword of Truth" series began with "Wizard's First Rule" in 1994. The 10th novel in the series, "Phantom," is on sale now. The 11th and final volume is under contract and will be published in 2008.

E Raimi and Donen hope to begin production of the opening mini-series, "Wizard's First Rule," within the next year, to be followed by ensuing volumes of the epic novels. The development process will begin while Raimi completes Spider-Man 3.

1 and A are the same information.

2 and B are the same information.

3 and C are the same quote

4 and D are different information about book publishing. Of the 2, the coming soon is the better info for the TG page as it's got information about the number of languages and copies in print.

5 and E are the same information.

There is nothing in the book standard link that is not in the coming soon link in greater detail. There is no reason to have this link in the external links. Can anyone see any reason to include the book standard link, based on this comparison of information? WLU 16:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How wonderful! You see, as there is differing information on each link there is no problem keeping them both. As I've stated in previous statements, there is not problem in any wikipedia policy in having these. I'm sure what with all your heavy lifting and exhastive brutual editing of so many pages in need of help, this is a minor and frivilous item. So again as I've stated while some material may well be ooverlaping, they do haev different material and that does not violate any policy. Mystar 17:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Read more closely, particularly the first sentence of the conclusion of my last reply, now in bold. Allow me to re-state. There is nothing in the bookstandard link that is not in the comingsoon link in greater detail. The information may be worded differently, but the content is the same. Just because it does not directly violate a policy does not mean it should be on the page. I am asking as plainly as I can: you say "they do haev different material" - what material is different? Please tell me what material you see covered in the bookstandard link that is not covered in the comingsoon link that is in any way germane to the article. If you don't tell me, I'm going to remove the link again because it serves no purpose on the page. Please show me the relevant information that means the bookstandard link should stay up. WLU 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me try a different way - how does the link enhance the article? How does having the book standard link add value to the article beyond the coming soon link? If the bookstandard link were removed, what would readers miss out on that is not captured in the coming soon link? WLU 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fantasy Author Category

GOODKIND CLAIMS NOT TO BE A FANTASY AUTHOR THEREFOR ETHE ATG SHOULD BE REMOVED!!!! Smith Jones 20:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While Goodkind considers himself to be "more of a novelist" he also acknowledges that he writes fantasy. The issue is largely semantics but nothing is harmed by including him in the "fantasy author" category as he is both percived (and marketed) as a fantasy author and has said he is as much. I will be reinserting the category and would appreciate it if you would no longer unilateraly remove it. NeoFreak 20:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

okay fine. Smith Jones 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While Goodkind's work is more than the general "fantasy" than is typically seen in those genera, it is nevertheless sole as a fantasy novel. Having the term "Epic Fantasy" is in no way demeaning nor detrimental to Goodkind or how he and his fans perceive his Novels. While it is true they are heralded as, philosophical works and having deep romantic themes, they are more than simple "Epic Fantasy", yet they are sold as such, and therefore should be listed in the category they are marketed. As Neofreak says Terry does state that he is not writing fantasy, he also states that he is using the term in a generalization, and goes further to state that he does acknowledge that his works are fantasy. That does not negate the fact that the deeper elements are there and remain. Mystar 03:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OKAY i get it shut up!!! Smith Jones 04:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think something needs to be added here, as the wiki is used as a review or explanation for the theme of the book. Perhaps editting may be performed. In any case, it is pretty significant that there has been a conflict between staple readers of the sword of truth series and Terry Goodkind, due to a misunderstanding of the entire theme of the series. Jasonred 03:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Any material about that conflict would need to be have reliable and significant sources, as one of Wikipedia's core policies prevents the addition of unpublished material, or original research. The material you have added to the article, while it may or may not be accurate, lacks such sources, and reads like an individual's commentary rather than an encyclopedic overview of existing opinion. Unless someone can produce references to support your analysis (which, given how thoroughly such topics have been hashed over in the past, seems unlikely), it will have to be removed from the article. If the conflict between Goodkind and some of his readers is in fact significant, it will have been mentioned by some reliable source. Brendan Moody 03:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion. I had previously removed a section that stood out as especially unfounded, but it does appear that the edits after that revision were original research. Sorry, Jasonred. Zenithan 20:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Creatures_in_The_Sword_of_Truth

Ikip (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Politics / Influence

I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia, but imo there should be some mention - beyond simply noting his admiration for Rand and her perspective - of his hardline right-wing politics and it's appearance in his novels. There are very strong right-wing themes and perspectives woven into his major series. It's blatant, unrelenting, and i don't understand why, if there is to be a mention of his political perspective at all, that it is not more clearly noted. He is rabid in his support for the American right-wing, and it features strongly in his 'The Sword of Truth' series.
Also, any 'Influences' section is dramatically lacking if it does not mention Goodkind's borderline plagiarism of Robert Jordan's 'Wheel of Time' series. I don't have the time or energy to provide examples or go into any greater detail, but perhaps if someone else shares my opinion / observation they could elaborate here.
The guy is a rip-off artist, and an ideological hardliner that seeds his 'fantasy' novels with right-wing propaganda. Imo, the 'Influences' section, if nothing else, should note this more clearly. Thanks for reading, and regards to all.
Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.160.103 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Being a person who reads many different authors and who occasionally ready wikipedia to learn a little about the authors I read, I notice that when an author writes fiction that is politically conservative, some person complains. Not so when a writer uses his pen/voice to espouse liberal views. Just an interesting point. Makes me wonder. Why? Is the perception that people are going to jump to a political view they didn't hold before, because they read a book? I couldn't care less what Mr. Goodkind's political views are. No more do I care how the writers of the other books on my reading list voted in the last election. I read to learn as well as be intertained and that means reading fiction and non-fiction from writers with political and philosophical views that span the gamut of viewpoints. Goodkind bothers me no more than does King, Jordan, Perry, Funke, Ross, Perry or Asimov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.179.15 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "right-wing". Terry Goodkind is a self-proclaimed objectivist, and these ideals come across quite clearly in his novels, but there's a big difference between Objectivism and Conservatism, which I assume is what you mean. As far as comparisons to Robert Jordan's work, yes, there are many similarities, but to my knowledge there hasn't been any scholarly comparisons between the two series. And that is the point I'm working towards: You're perfectly entitled to your opinions, but without some references or reliable sources, then your opinions are just original research.

Feel free to add to the influences section, but be aware that any contributions that don't have objective, third party citations will be removed. - Runch (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

One problem is there is no indication in the article of the darker themes of the Goodkind's books, including repetitive themes about torture and rape. --Silentbob7843920 (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

All such analysis in an article must have already been published by a reliable source. If you are aware of such material, feel free to add it to the article, or else direct other editors to it on this talk page. But just because you or I notice it in the reading of his works, or it appears on someones blog or fansite, that is not suitable for inclusion in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom, a warning about the explicit nature of Goodkind's Sword of Truth books is very appropriate. I thought I had a strong stomach until I stumbled across the vile imagery in Goodkind's books. With a mere pen, Goodkind's artful implications have succeeded in portraying vile savagery in a way that no movie or television program has ever achieved. This constitutes the exceptional character to Goodkind's work that distinguishes it from that of the other more-moderate fantasy authors. I doubt I would let a child of mine read the Goodkind books until s/he was in their late teens. BlueRobe (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Many of these include blogs and forums, however many if not most reviews (even if favourable) include a warning about the graphic nature of the novels. For example: http://www.sfreviews.net/wizardrule.html, "The violence gets a bit excessive after a certain point.", http://www.allreaders.com/Topics/info_533.asp?BSID=159891806 ""Sword of Truth is a poorly written, highly derivative story about a forest guide who is given the titular weapon. It has an excessive, prolonged section of torture. Redundant writing and a lack of originality plague this book." Rebecca Davis, Resident Scholar ", "Style Accounts of torture and death? - very explicit references to deaths and torture", http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2009/jul/10/british-fantasy-awards-michael-moorcock "even the progressively crazier, more polemic, frankly dreadful Terry Goodkind. I ploughed through 12-book series – I like to know the ending – and yes, I have read the bizarro chicken sequence from Soul of the Fire.".Silentbob7843920 (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is undeniably true that Goodkind weaves his political beliefs into his Sword of Truth books. Indeed, Faith of the Fallen is little more than a fantasised version of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (along with a bit of The Fountainhead). However, would anyone be complaining if Goodkind was feeding us the usual left-wing rhetoric that most authors wantonly ram down our throats? BlueRobe (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda is incorrect wording. He is not advertising his political views. He is expressing them. He is not doing so to instigate violence or hatred or to sway a large population to his favor which is what propaganda is for. He has every right to say what ever he wants. It is his book. Keep in mind fiction writing is a work of art no different than a painting. If you don't like the color of the sky in a painting you don't tell the artist to redo it you simply don't buy it. If you don't like them then you can choose not to read them. As far as plagerizing goes I must laugh at this because I just went to the article for Paolini's Eragon. I only read the first book and had to stop because it was so irksome to read something from a kid who plagerized every single book he read. You can actually see the clear matches between things in his book and any other fantasy book. In fact I haven't read a fantasy book that he hasnt ripped off yet. To bad somebody couldn't write an article about children becoming authors before they actually know anything about life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miafina (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think people complain about Goodkind's politics because, unlike Stephen King or any of the others mentioned he pretty much rubs his readers' nose in it, with his strawmen arguments, endless political speaches and less than fair criticism at the left wing. Shades of gray do not exist in Goodkind's world -if you take his bizarre morals into account that is.

Besides, and most importantly: wether you're a left winger or not the ideas he defends in his books are pretty questionable to say the least. Mr. Goodkind has stated in interviews that Richard Rahl is (obviously) his alter ego and responds to certain situations the same way he would respond. So in other words Goodkind advocates: killing people who preach left wing ideals (and keeping their ears as trophies), killing unarmed pacifists who object to war, attacking other nation's civilians and kicking nasty children in the jaw(!)

I really don't see why people ask why his political views are an issue. I personally think they're downright sickening.

Can somebody please tell me what's not downright fascist about all this?

His less than fantastic writing skills (subtility was never his strongest point), plot holes, numerous BDSM scenes (gratuitous torture and rape), arrogant statement that he "doesn't write fantasy" (yeah right!), and let's say the 'remarkable similiarities' in his books to Robert Jordan's makes it all even less bearable for me (as, fo the unfain compairsions to Eragon, keep in mind that unlike the boy who wrote Eragon, Goodkind is actually a grown man, ripping off another author for 11 books instead of just one).

- Joe Dharma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.40.243 (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sort of at a loss here, the above comments are so mindbogglingly ironic...the words that spring to mind are "hamfisted propaganda" and "lies". "Subtility" (sic) obviously isn't their strong suit either. I'm only partway through the series, so I'm not sure which specific incidents the above poster twisted and misrepresented to fit their point, but the "nasty" girl kept a "playmate" (read:Officially Designated Physical, Mental and Verbal Abuse Victim) and was being groomed, and indeed aspired to be a mass murderer. And unless I'm mistaken the "pacifists" in question will turn out to be a violent bloodthirsty mob incited by the REAL Fascists, and resemble the angry villagers from Frankenstein, rather than something Gandhi would recognize as in line with pacifism. I'm sure there is room for a critique of his work, but based on facts, not on convenient exaggerations, lies, and what appears to be hatred of the man himself. PreciousRoi (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I see the mention of his Randian views are in the lede but never in to main article. The lede should summarise the article. Also, is there any support for the fact that these views are so notable that they belong in the lede? It seems to be simply a piece of trivia about him. Ashmoo (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I somehow missed the section in the main article about Rand. But my point about its notability for the lede still stands. Ashmoo (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Terry Goodkind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6573502.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

POV section dispute

"Reception" section is in violation of Wikipedia Neutral point of view policy.

Section does not represent "proportionately"

Section does not "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views."

From the NPOV article: "While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased." "Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others" "The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another."

Explanation: The current postings in the reception section are appropriate in an isolated context, but presented as such give undue weight to the criticisms against the author and his works. There are no truly positive reviews posted, and the section gives an impression that the author and series is viewed negatively overall, despite the existence of positive reviews, its presence on many fantasy best-of lists, and best seller status. I would suggest that either: A. Additional positive review material be added to more accurately reflect the reception of the author and his works, or B. The section be removed in its entirety.

Apologies if this is written wrong, not a wiki editor, did my best though. cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.217.117 (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Not even a single positive review is mentioned here. I came here after reading one of his books, which I considered to be topnotch fantasy and the article lead me to believe that he is widely considered a bad author. I've realized from other sources that there are actually many people who share my views.

Also a section titled "Reception" sounds weird to me in an article about an author. Naturally each of his works will have different reception. Also, no other authors which I looked up in Wikipedia has this section.

I will wait a month, and if no other comments are added here, I'll delete the section.

88.80.249.131 (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Facebook as a source

Someone added his official Facebook as a source. Is it reliable enough, or no? MikaelaArsenault (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

At the time, it was the only available source and, as you pointed out, is his official account. TOR has since confirmed, and I'll be adding that shortly. FeralDruid (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Critisms

No one has acknowledged the critisms of Mr. GoodKind. Is it because everyone here is trying to make him seem positive? No offense, but a lot of people have critized him, and he steals his ideas from others. (this has been proven and stated by reputable sources.) This section is important. Danglerofhell (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)