LKH & Goodkind: authors I simultaneously love and hate
Friday night I picked up Laurell K. Hamilton’s newest in the Merry Gentry series, A Lick of Frost. Again, this book takes place over the space of a few days. It wasn’t quite as annoying as it could have been, I suppose, since apparently LKH has stopped needing to write sex as 95% of the story. I went to reread my post about the last Merry installment, which made me recall all the things I’d been annoyed about in that book. In any case, there is actually some forward movement in plot that does NOT have to do with her leveling up through sex. I quite enjoyed the new plot points in the story, and I’m interested in where Merry’s tale is going. Some of the things that happened were obviously plot devices in order to take Doyle off-screen and give some of her secondary favorites (namely Frost, but with some Rhys thrown in) some time in the spotlight, but whatever.
There is a semi-conclusion to one of the big issues in the story so far which, although I enjoy what LKH has chosen to do, only re-emphasizes that, contrary to her assertion that she challenges her characters, she does indeed take the easy way out for them. Know why? Of her two long-running series with strong-willed, petite, female protagonists, guess how many are Mary Sues? I'm not making this difficult for you, people. Yes, both of them. It isn't that she hasn't given the readers what they want, because I think the way she resolved this issue is certainly what I was rooting for. But I am kind of resentful of her claim that she challenges her characters. She decidedly does not. What she does is challenge what the mainstream mindset thinks is "normal". And I appreciate that. But let's face it, she's preaching to the choir. Most of the people who were offended by the way the Anita Blake books were going stopped reading a LONG time ago. And they certainly didn't pick up the Merry Gentry books which started out just as "offensive" as the Anita Blake books had become by book 8 or so. Maybe she picks and chooses in what ways and moments she wants to challenge them, but her statement has really just stuck in my craw and I can't forget it.
Terry Goodkind's Confessor: the book to end the Sword of Truth series. I will be sad to see it end, but somewhat relieved at the same time. I'm almost halfway through and while I am enjoying the story, Goodkind's preaching monologues have begun to annoy me. This is not a surprise, of course. Two characters in particular, Nathan and Ann (most especially Ann), have really begun to annoy me. I can't quite figure out if they're acting out-of-character because of certain circumstances within the story or because I just can't remember exactly how their characters used to be, or are supposed to be. It's been a long time since they had a more significant role in the story. Goodkind may also be using them just as slight opposition, and that's fine; I just wish it seemed more in-character. Maybe it's just because I'm just kind of disgusted by Ann's arrogant attitude. As usual, I enjoy any parts of the story from Richard's POV; he has the most interesting thoughts, and most of the action centers around him and his struggles. Other characters are mainly for furthering the plot, or exposition. Sometimes I think that Jagang is too much the evil stereotype "hahaha!" *rubs hands together* kind of character, but I guess it works. I guess he has just enough depth to avoid ruining the story altogether.
I think it's kind of sad that I am still looking forward to whatever Goodkind's next endeavor will be. He builds worlds and main characters too interestingly for me to resist, even when I'm more than annoyed with his preaching.
Oddly enough, I have come to feel similarly about LKH and Terry Goodkind, though for different reasons. And that's something I never even guessed I'd come to say; I don't think anyone would think to compare these two particular authors. I really enjoy reading both LKH's and Goodkind's series, but there is a certain quirk in the writing of either author that just bugs the hell out of me. In LKH's case, it's that her protagonists are Mary Sues; she tends to incorporate what I'm assuming are real-life experiences or epiphanies into whatever book she's currently writing (which means that Anita Blake and Merry Gentry will also have the same personal epiphanies at around the same time), and her "I challenge my characters" claim. In Goodkind's case, it's that he writes his amazing stories around socio-political essays. And then has his characters reiterate those themes in monologues whenever there's any fucking chance. And by monologue I mean two-and-a-half pages' worth of beat-me-over-the-head-with-your-credo. Again.
I have actually turned this particular installment of my occassional book review into an essay myself, and for that I apologize somewhat. It's just such a shame that two authors whose ability to create an interesting story is so amazing, are SO influenced by their personal lives and social views in SUCH AN ANNOYING WAY (and this is coming from someone who AGREES WITH THEM), that they cannot help but preach instead of tell their awesome stories! I realize that it doesn't make sense to ask for a complete separation of an author from her work, but there are ways to make it more subtle as well as not treating your readers like they're a bunch of hick idiots who need to be beaten over the head with your philosophy.
I get it already. Jeez.
There is a semi-conclusion to one of the big issues in the story so far which, although I enjoy what LKH has chosen to do, only re-emphasizes that, contrary to her assertion that she challenges her characters, she does indeed take the easy way out for them. Know why? Of her two long-running series with strong-willed, petite, female protagonists, guess how many are Mary Sues? I'm not making this difficult for you, people. Yes, both of them. It isn't that she hasn't given the readers what they want, because I think the way she resolved this issue is certainly what I was rooting for. But I am kind of resentful of her claim that she challenges her characters. She decidedly does not. What she does is challenge what the mainstream mindset thinks is "normal". And I appreciate that. But let's face it, she's preaching to the choir. Most of the people who were offended by the way the Anita Blake books were going stopped reading a LONG time ago. And they certainly didn't pick up the Merry Gentry books which started out just as "offensive" as the Anita Blake books had become by book 8 or so. Maybe she picks and chooses in what ways and moments she wants to challenge them, but her statement has really just stuck in my craw and I can't forget it.
Terry Goodkind's Confessor: the book to end the Sword of Truth series. I will be sad to see it end, but somewhat relieved at the same time. I'm almost halfway through and while I am enjoying the story, Goodkind's preaching monologues have begun to annoy me. This is not a surprise, of course. Two characters in particular, Nathan and Ann (most especially Ann), have really begun to annoy me. I can't quite figure out if they're acting out-of-character because of certain circumstances within the story or because I just can't remember exactly how their characters used to be, or are supposed to be. It's been a long time since they had a more significant role in the story. Goodkind may also be using them just as slight opposition, and that's fine; I just wish it seemed more in-character. Maybe it's just because I'm just kind of disgusted by Ann's arrogant attitude. As usual, I enjoy any parts of the story from Richard's POV; he has the most interesting thoughts, and most of the action centers around him and his struggles. Other characters are mainly for furthering the plot, or exposition. Sometimes I think that Jagang is too much the evil stereotype "hahaha!" *rubs hands together* kind of character, but I guess it works. I guess he has just enough depth to avoid ruining the story altogether.
I think it's kind of sad that I am still looking forward to whatever Goodkind's next endeavor will be. He builds worlds and main characters too interestingly for me to resist, even when I'm more than annoyed with his preaching.
Oddly enough, I have come to feel similarly about LKH and Terry Goodkind, though for different reasons. And that's something I never even guessed I'd come to say; I don't think anyone would think to compare these two particular authors. I really enjoy reading both LKH's and Goodkind's series, but there is a certain quirk in the writing of either author that just bugs the hell out of me. In LKH's case, it's that her protagonists are Mary Sues; she tends to incorporate what I'm assuming are real-life experiences or epiphanies into whatever book she's currently writing (which means that Anita Blake and Merry Gentry will also have the same personal epiphanies at around the same time), and her "I challenge my characters" claim. In Goodkind's case, it's that he writes his amazing stories around socio-political essays. And then has his characters reiterate those themes in monologues whenever there's any fucking chance. And by monologue I mean two-and-a-half pages' worth of beat-me-over-the-head-with-your-credo. Again.
I have actually turned this particular installment of my occassional book review into an essay myself, and for that I apologize somewhat. It's just such a shame that two authors whose ability to create an interesting story is so amazing, are SO influenced by their personal lives and social views in SUCH AN ANNOYING WAY (and this is coming from someone who AGREES WITH THEM), that they cannot help but preach instead of tell their awesome stories! I realize that it doesn't make sense to ask for a complete separation of an author from her work, but there are ways to make it more subtle as well as not treating your readers like they're a bunch of hick idiots who need to be beaten over the head with your philosophy.
I get it already. Jeez.