Sophomore Efforts: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly!

When it comes to Sci Fi and Fantasy, the first book can be fantastic, but the second book can kill a series or propel it to greatness.

I'll leave this topic open-ended, since we can discuss success and failure.

I'm reading Terry Goodkind's second book in the series, "The Stone of Tears".

I thought his first book was one of the best "firsts" I've ever read.

I'm only halfway through the second book (500 pages in), and already I'm frustrated. I think he's a great writer when he's hitting on all cylinders, but his second novel has already fallen into the trap of going into too many directions, and not all of them interesting. So you have these great moments, and these scenes you wish he'd simply cut from the book. If he lopped 300 of the 900 pages, he could have been a Tolkienesque legend instead of a good fantasy writer. It's the Goldilocks thing, too much or too little spoils the meal.

G.P Taylor on the other hand, wrote three back to back books that were great, but he started three different series, which left the readers frustrated. By now he would have a great movie series if he would have simply stuck with one series at a time. (My opinion)

David Gemmel- always consistent. A top tier writter, but because each story stands alone with new characters, new wars, he never reached legend status. Still one of the greats.

* See added comments on 9/16/09 regarding Sophomore efforts of Terry Goodkind

Apsu said:

I haven't read the second two books you're talking about, but I have read Terry Goodkind's first. And, I have to say, I felt the same as you. The first book was surprising in how good it was, but it's all down hill from there. Bad as the show "The Sword Of Truth" was renowned to be, I thought it was the best thing that guy had been a part of since the writing of his first book.

Click to expand...

The Sword of Truth isn't "Bad" in my opinion. It's just not as good as the first. When you write a thousand page book and go off in a variety of directions, you risk losing the reader's interests. Honestly, he spent way too much time with the mud people - In my opinion. If he pruned, I would likely love this book. As it is, I like it.

I read his Pillars of Creation first, which was way out of turn.

Some of the writing is great, but as an author, you have to have dedicated fans who will stay with you through dragging parts. Pillars of Creation was a better book than the one I'm reading, perhaps because he did choose to prune it down.

Some one may say the same of me some day if my books succeed. It's just one of the risks of a huge story. If he had taken a few books and boiled them down, I have absolutely no doubt he'd have created a monstrous series in the Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings sales numbers.

When he's on the money, he's on the money.

Mara said:

With Terry Goodkind, I think a big part of his problem was that his books became more about espousing his real-life politics than about telling an interesting story. The first book did both and I liked it, even though I dislike his real-life politics very much. But the later ones weren't good stories, and in a few cases, I think it's because he tried to base stories on his politics alone. Also, his politics go from being a little obnoxious to outright crazy.

At one point, he bases an entire Sword of Truth book around a metaphor that basically says, "The Jews invented the Holocaust in order to enslave Aryans through their guilt. And now the Jews are creating Neo-Nazis and tricking them into doing the Jews' dirty work." I wish I was kidding. Not only is it creepy, but it's a really bad basis for a story. It's not about something happening. It's just about an endless series of people whining and discovering the awful truth.

Click to expand...

It was the same thing with Rodinberry and Star Trek. However, the casting of the show was so good that the politics didn't lose viewership.

I'm not really aware of the Politics you're speaking of, but that would piss me off if that's a point he's making. I know he likes Ayne Rand's philosophy. But I'm only vaguely familiar with her, and I disagree with much of what I do know of her philosophical views.

Camilla Delvalle said:

Writing a good series seems to be difficult. So much work over so many years, while your motivation, skill, and ideas change. It seems almost impossible to plot and then execute a long series according to the plot. Another way is to write it more like a soap opera, book for book, without plotting in advance. That's also an interesting way to do it I guess.

When it comes to Goodkind, the second book of the series was the second one he published. Maybe he didn't have the experience and skill to know how to write a good sequel?

There is a paradox here. The first book of a series is the most important, because it's the one that most people read, so it has to be good to make them continue. But when writing the first book your skill is at its minimum and you are supposed to get better for each book.

Even more strange then that in many series the books seem to continually deteriorate. How can that be when the writer is supposed to get better?

Click to expand...

Writing subsequent books requires a different skillset than the first.

You're no longer beginning at the beginning. And you have to make a middle to sound as exciting as a beginning. And then you have to choose were you'll end the second story at a place that will leave readers wanting more.

In a sense, you're now trying to "make it fit".

The next juggle is trying to refresh everyone's memories, and to give just the right amount of space to each character. So it does take more juggling than book one.

Hallen said:

http://www.terrygoodkind.com/forum/faq.php?faq=terrygoodkind

Terry Goodkind comes off as pretty arrogant and heavy handed with his personal philosophy. He is a self professed Objectivist and does agree strongly with most of Ayn Rand's philosophies. The rest of it... well, lets just say that people really stretch things when they misunderstand or dislike a successful person's world view.

I always found his writing style to be somewhat primitive. Yet you cannot argue that most of his books are fast paced, exciting, and engrossing. I read all of them and although I can pick holes in most of his stuff, and I definitely found his multi-page "As you know Bob, ... free will ... yes and ... free will ... " diatribes boring, completely unnecessary, and not good story telling (even though I actually agree with a good portion of that philosophy), overall I enjoyed them all. Some were definitely better than others.

I think a whole lot of hype has developed over his outspoken philosophy and I would hazard a guess that most of it is bullhocky.

Click to expand...

There are pieces where the story gets long-winded. One of Kahlan's speeches in Book Two is just way too long. I think it takes between 3 to 5 pages to get across her point. The mud people thing just---

Again, I love the guys stories,overall, and most of his writing- so far. So it's one of those things I'm trying to keep in perspective.

Hallen said:

Oh, there are several of those in the later books. The themes get more strongly aligned with his philosophies too, but that doesn't necessarily make them bad stories.

I remember one section where Zed, the witch, and others ... can't remember who, sit around and discuss stuff. I never skip pages in books, but I did skip all of that. I scanned it and it was all the same stuff. It had no real relation to the story.

I do have to say that I really enjoyed the books. I was let down to an extent in a few places where I don't think he really pulled it off. I've read a lot of other books that may have been better written, but not many that entertained me that much.

Click to expand...

Spoiler Alert

I think I enjoyed the Pillars of Creation because I read it out of sequence. If I had known Richard and Kahlan were the good guys, it would have ruined it for me. Not knowing actually made that a great read, because I had to sort out the clues. I had a strong hunch where it was going less than halfway through; but by then I was into the book and wanted to see it unfold.

The one thing that I don't enjoy in Book Two is the perspective juggling. The Sisters see it through "their perspective". Then there are the "Midland" perspectives. Sometimes it's nice to know Sauron is just a mean guy who wants to ruin everything.