Denver Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Club

Wizard's First Rule (1994)
Book One of The Sword of Truth series

1994 Tor hardback 573 pages
(Tor paperback 848 pages)
Cover art by Doug Beekman (left)

2001 Tor trade paperback 573 pages
Cover art by Keith Parkinson (right)

The magical boundaries between the lands are crumbling.  Richard Cypher, a modest woodsman, armed with the Sword of Truth, is the only one who can stop the evil designs of the mage Darken Rahl.  Along the way, Richard saves Kahlan Amnell, a young woman with Rahl's assassins on her trail and a secret of her own, who is seeking the aid of a great wizard.  Together, accompanied by Richard's friend and mentor Zedd, they need to find the last of the three boxes of Orden to prevent the evil Rahl from having the ultimate magical power and letting the realm of the dead into the world.

Wizard's First Rule has generated a considerable amount of email, mostly complaining about our "low" ratings.  It also generated a considerable amount of discussion among our book group.  As you can tell from the ratings, our opinions on this book widely differed.

Personally, I liked Wizard's First Rule - I rated it 7 out of 10.  I haven't yet gone on to read more of the Sword of Truth series, due to stacks of other books to read, but someday I'd like to read more of Goodkind's books.  I found this book worthwhile entertainment, and even defended it in our group discussion.

Goodkind's Sword of Truth series has many loyal fans.  The popularity of these books is what inspired me to suggest that our group read Wizard's First Rule in the first place.  I've received emails from a number of people telling me it's their all-time favorite, and I'm happy that they found books they so profoundly enjoyed.

Does it truly lessen one's enjoyment of a book if someone else doesn't like it?  It's nice when others share our views, it tends to reinforce our confidence in our own good taste.  But if someone doesn't agree, it doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong, or worse, stupid.  People have different likes and dislikes, and can see things in different ways.

Why did several people in the book group strongly dislike Wizard's First Rule?  One reason given was that they felt this book was not well written (or poorly edited), that there were too many misspellings and too much bad grammar.  Another felt parts were needlessly crude.  There was also the complaint that the story was too derivative of other fantasy books, not very original.  The reason discussed most, however, was an episode three quarters of the way into the book - the long torture scene involving Richard Cypher and Mistress Denna, the Mord-Sith.  Richard suffers at the hands of leather clad Denna and her rod- like Agiel.  The S&M aspects of their "relationship" didn't appeal to me, and several group members found it extremely disagreeable, enough so to sour them on the entire book.  This scene was unexpected and intense, but not - in my opinion - gratuitous.  They didn't agree.  One person was extremely uncomfortable reading this scene and could only skim it.  Richard's encounter with the Mord-Sith may be important in later books, but I think such a traumatic scene should've been better foreshadowed.

I'd recommend Wizard's First Rule, but perhaps not for younger readers.  The plot moved well and I thought the main characters - Richard and Kahlan - were interesting and showed emotional depth.  I liked the magic of the Sword of Truth.  Yet the fantasy setting, the world building, was way too sketchy for my tastes. I thought the name Richard too mundane a name for a sword wielding hero.  Fantasy books usually have more fancifully named heroes, such as Aragorn, Frodo, Rand, Conan, or even Zedd.  But I'll concede that by giving his protagonist a common name like Richard, Goodkind made him seem a common man, more like you and me.

Many Goodkind fans have written to tell me that they think Goodkind is better than Tolkien. Well, no!  In my opinion, comparing Goodkind to Tolkien is a bit like comparing apples and oranges, or comparing fast food to filet mignon, their fantasy books are very different.  I'll grant that Goodkind's books are probably more accessible, and hence less boring, to the modern reader.  The Sword of Truth books are easier to read and more action packed than Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, but does that truly make them better?

Tolkien's prose at times can be overly descriptive, but I think Tolkien's writing is far more skillful and more poetic than Goodkind's.  His story is sophisticated, and often profound.  Tolkien excelled at world-building; he created Middle Earth, a complete fantasy setting which has become the blueprint for the Dungeons & Dragons game and a large proportion of the fantasy field.  Many modern fantasies have a setting similar to Tolkien's, but Tolkien did it first, he was an originator.

Goodkind, on the other hand, is focused on character-building.  His writing, especially in his first book Wizard's First Rule, is adequate at best, and clumsy at worst, and parts of his Sword of Truth series seem overly derivative of other fantasy books, such as those by Robert Jordan.  Goodkind created a story for his characters, and world-building was a secondary concern.  Goodkind is a talented storyteller and his characters are compelling, but I didn't connect to his stories as strongly as some of you obviously did.  Reading Terry Goodkind was not a life-changing experience for me.

In my opinion, Goodkind's books are not as well-done or as outstandingly original as Tolkien's.  You're welcome to disagree with me, but I'm standing by my opinion.