Wizard's First Rule

Probably because I've watched so much of Brandon Sanderson's stuff, YouTube started recommending me videos by one Daniel Greene who does fantasy book reviews and such. One of Mr. Greene's videos is a "blistering review" of Wizard's First Rule by Terry Goodkind. He also has another discussing why the author is so controversial. Or was -- Terry Goodkind passed away in September.

I thought maybe I should first read the novel before letting someone else tell me what to think. I was somewhat familiar with Goodkind's Sword of Truth series from the TV adaptation Legend of the Seeker that is based on the first book. I had seen Goodkind's name also associated with Ayn Rand's Objectivism whose proponent he was.

From the TV show I vaguely recalled the protagonist Richard Cyber, wizard Zedd, and the clad-in-crimson-leather Mord-Sith and their pain sticks. I remember thinking that the show was typical campy fantasy. The book largely has the same feel.

It does have an excellent name though. It makes you wonder, pulls you in to learn what the first rule is. I think the title also might make you expect the protagonist to be a wizard. Why would the novel be about a wizard's first rule otherwise? Richard is not a wizard though; just a young woods guide. But even his friend Zedd dawdles with the revelation. When at halfway point the rule still hadn't been stated, I assumed it wasn't going to be anything clever. Maybe something like "nothing's ever easy" as that's what Zedd kept repeating to himself.

The book surprised me however. The first rule had actual merit to it and the ending is build around it. Apparently in each of the following volumes another wizard rule is revealed. That alone almost makes me want to continue reading the series. Its library availability seems to be limited here though.

Wizard's First Rule also touched briefly on various subjects that were related to the current situation, such as how different people might perceive concepts like justice. I found those moments solid; characters' opinions and argument seemed logical.

Goodkind touches very lightly on Objectivism as well when a farmer criticizes the situation the country is in. I hear in the later novels Goodkind went much harder on the subject, copying Rand's style in Atlas Shrugged by using long monologues. That might not be the best approach for a fantasy story although according to Goodkind he didn't even write fantasy but "stories that have important human themes". I wonder what his definition of fantasy was and how it prohibited human themes.

I liked that Wizard's First Rule is not a coming-of-age fantasy story. It was such a refreshing change after the Tales of the Otori and Farseer trilogies. Having main characters be in control of situations and ready to chop heads off in righteous anger was awesome. I do wonder when Richard learned to use a sword though. Not a typical weapon of choice for a woods guide and the book only mentions him having a knife before. Does the Sword of Truth grant him the skill via its magic?

Even though I found Wizard's First Rule an entertaining read, I agree with many of Daniel Greene's points. The novel is definitely derivative, at least in individual elements. I don't believe in the value of originality as hard as Mr. Greene though: every author uses similar elements more or less. And I don't think Goodkind was "stealing" stuff, just using common tropes.

Mr. Greene's points about basic world building, clumsy character writing, and how magic is always being used as a device to move the plot forward are acute however. New magic rules come out of nowhere; they're never introduced beforehand. I would say though that once some magic has been introduced, you do know how it will work from that point onward: no soft magic systems there.

And about Terry Goodkind being controversial... whatever. You can definitely say that Goodkind didn't live up to his name, based on the excerpts Daniel Greene had dug up but an author not being the best human ever is not a problem for me; I don't care about it in relation to the book I'm reading.

I have to say though that one quote on the novel's wikipedia article bothers me. "I'm sort of the exception that proves the rule," is what Goodkind said about how he had no trouble at selling his first book, Wizard's First Rule, to a publisher. That's not an exception that proves a rule!

An exception that proves a rule is one that makes you aware that there is a rule to begin with. It states the rule via negation. For instance, a store has a sign that says "Closed on Sundays". That's an exception that proves the rule of the store being open 6 days a week. Goodkind having had easy time getting a publisher doesn't prove that it's normally difficult. He did say 'sort of' however. I guess he's safe.

The phrase has roots in some Roman Empire time law text or something. How it's currently used in English -- and Finnish -- is annoyingly illogical. I think in Finnish the verb used in the phrase 'vahvistaa' has been misunderstood at some point since it means 'to make stronger' in addition to 'confirm'. As if an exception would somehow make a rule stronger, hmph!