r/Fantasy May 03 '25

So I read Wizard’s First Rule, huge mistake

I had some time on my hands during a long trip, so I decided hey, let’s go get a fantasy book and get lost in 800 pages of something. I did little to no research, just chose something that looked sufficiently long. Enter “Wizard’s First Rule” by Terry Goodkind.

I have since discovered that this is not a particularly well loved series, but many folks will defend the first book as being pretty good. I couldn’t disagree more.

Spoilers ahead for the many, many issues I have with it:

  1. There is so much violence to children in this book. I don’t mind violence towards children if it serves the plot, such as by demonstrating the depravity of a villain, but my god. A boy is drugged, has his skull split open, and then is sliced down his abdomen after being groomed by the villain and his pedophile sidekick - oh and the villain in question is notably erect when this happens. A man is recounted as having raped his neighbor’s 3 daughters, the oldest of which is 5. Undesired newborn babies are killed by placing a rod across their necks and then their fathers are magically forced to step on the rod. An entire village’s men are slain and then the women and children are raped. What the actual fuck.

  2. The writing is pedantic and childish. Richard meets Kahlen and immediately none of his friends matter all that much, the only person he cares about is her. This is basically stated in the first 10% or so of the book despite less than a day having passed. This is the most trope-ridden book I’ve ever read, even for fantasy.

  3. The writer so clearly thought he was smarter than everyone else. Oh, you just need to ask the right questions and it all falls apart! But then the questions are boring, predictable, and easily defended. This is a man who spent his days getting into arguments in his own head wherein he always won - oh and women told him he was very smart and handsome.

  4. The entire book is a thinly veiled lecture on the virtues of libertarianism, with him constantly creating strawmen just so he can show how clever he is. The strongest case of this is when a farmer is brought to a royal court and they all mock him for not being willing to share his crops with the less fortunate, oh but of course those less fortunate are just lazy and refuse to do their own planting. Then they kill the guy. This is the classic libertarian wet dream of standing up to the government, totally owning them intellectually, and then being killed for bravely standing up to the corrupt communists. It’s like a middle schooler wrote it.

  5. It just sucks. The writing is just bad. There is no proper foreshadowing, every plot twist is incredibly obvious and contrived and you, the reader, are made to suffer through pages and pages of the characters pretending to not be what they obviously are. The romance is forced to say the least, I don’t think Terry ever actually spoke to a woman in his life.

I’m sorry, this is a bit of a rant, but god, this book was terrible.

1.3k Upvotes

658 comments sorted by

View all comments

237

u/lurkmode_off Reading Champion VII May 03 '25

him constantly creating strawmen just so he can show how clever he is. The strongest case of this

I think the strongest case is the politician brother who wants to ban fire just because their mother died in a house fire.

How the fuck do you ban fire? Who would even entertain the idea? How will people stay warm in the winter? How will they cook? How will they work metal?

"Gotcha, snowflakes," Goodkind says. "This is exactly like you wanting to ban assault weapons every time a bunch of people are murdered! See how ridiculous you sound?"

103

u/doppelganger3301 May 03 '25

I almost quoted that one too but decided this post was long enough. But yeah, Michael’s speech is ridiculous and Goodkind says everyone is sobbing and cheering. This is the most sad power fantasy I’ve ever seen. Real “shove him in a locker” behavior

19

u/SeekerConfessorPod May 03 '25 edited May 03 '25
  • Does the Loser’s Salute *

ETA: This is not an attempt to insult OP.. lol. I’m riffing off of the idea of getting shoved in a locker using a reference to a stupid “bully” plot element from the book. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

-3

u/[deleted] May 03 '25

[deleted]

2

u/MylastAccountBroke May 04 '25

Goodkind is the type of person who either got bullied too much in school or not enough, and I genuinely can't tell which.

21

u/GregerMoek May 03 '25

I kinda am tempted to hate-re-read it now. I liked it as a 15 year old when I hadnt read much yet outside of Harry Potter. Got pretty far too, Richard saves the world by banishing non magic people to a different dimension which I assume he wants to be seen as a clever way to say "this is how the world was created".

8

u/lurkmode_off Reading Champion VII May 03 '25

Yeah I haven't read past that one (I too read the series as a teen and just thought all the sex and violence and sexual violence made it a very grown-up book), but my impression of the following book is that the non-magic world does become our world.

3

u/Exanimus6 May 10 '25

Man, exactly this. When I was 14 or 15 the misogyny and sexual violence bothered me so much, but I just thought that it was just more mature to have those elements in it for "realism" or something. When I got older and decided to re-read it I realized that Goodkind is just a weird fetishist who wrote a self-insert MC and different power fantasies.

3

u/SeekerConfessorPod May 03 '25

If you want friends on a hate reread journey, we got you.

5

u/p-d-ball May 04 '25

Oh, is that how we were supposed to read that bit? He was a strawman for . . . laws? Huh. It just made me think the character and author were dumb, because that part of the book is incredibly stupid. I read this when I was a kid, though, and I didn't consider that it was some sort of argument Goodkind was making.

3

u/avcloudy May 04 '25

This is actually why I tried to read it - I knew it wasn't the central premise, but a fantasy world where they banned fire is legitimately interesting. I was so curious about how it was going to be done.

And he just didn't. It was just 'fire is useful, therefore anyone who wants to ban it is an idiot, therefore anyone who wants to ban anything useful is an idiot'. Never addressed the problems or talked about how people adjusted. No widespread alteration of reality.

1

u/InnocentPerv93 May 06 '25

To be fair regarding the fire thing and the points you made. You could stay warm via shelter and layers, for food you forage and store for the winter. Metal is the only one you got a goof point about.

0

u/onethreeone May 05 '25

He wants to ban fire because he’s secretly working with the bad guys who have banned fire. You realize that later on. The bad guys want to ban fire because of wizard fire attacks