[Krupee]

I'm not sure if this had been done before, but it's about time this issue was settled.

For quiet some time now, my brother and I have been arguing about who the worst fantasy author is. We've both read a HUGE collection of books, and both of us have agreed that either Eddings or Goodking deserves the title. But now we're arguing about who deserves the title more than the other.

This topic has been a source of much argument and discussion between me and my brother, so we decided at last that we should check out other peopl's opnions on the matter so here we go...

I personally think that there is no relationship between eEdding's and Goodking's writings. I mean as bad as Goodking is, he can never reach Edding's level of PPPL (Poor Pure Plain Logic).

I've been checking as many forums and reviews about Edding's books as i could find, and most of them seem to be identicle. Everyone who dislikes Edding's says he likes the first series he read (wether it be The Tamuli, The Belgarion,....etc) and hates the rest because they're copies. This also holds true for me.

I first read Domes Of Fire when i was in england and found it rather entertaining (note the use of the word entertaining), but nothing spectacular. I'd already read tons of better books by then, still I didn't mind it all in all. I mean yes, the characters were weak, the dialogue pathetic, the world sloppy,.......... yet it was sort of fun. I actually thought the book was a sort of satire on fantasy books.

When I returned to Sudan I found that one of my relatives had bought all of eddings book released up untill then, and encourged me to read them.

That's when al hell broke loose.

I can't relate how bad I felt as I read trough his books, one after the other, untill I had actually finished every single one of them.

I mean awwwwgghhhh.

Ahhm... Excuse my outburst but this is a very sensitive issue for me. Every time I even try to remeber the month I wasted reading his books I get giddy.

I don't want to take much of your time either, so let's rap it up. Everyone who agrees with me that Eddings is the worst fantasy writer please state so and everyone who agrees with my brother that Goodking is the worst writer ever please state so too.

(Please keep in mind that we're talking about writing skills only. Not the actual writers. So don't go picking on Goodking just because he has some problems that need to be solved. I know that everyone hates goodking, but don't let it affect your judgment.)

[QuickTidal]

Goodkind is worse.

I read the first series of Eddings books, and while not good, they were definitely not even close to as bad as Goodkinds crap.

[Imperial Historian]

Judging from the level of hate Goodkind receives on this board I think I can see who's going to win...

Added a poll and changed goodkinds name from goodking.

I have to say I still hold Eddings in high regard... though I wouldn't pick any of his new books up, he entertained me and got me into fantasy initially, and I still say he's the one of the best young adult fantasy author around, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend him to a young reader on their first delve into fantasy.

Goodkind on the other hand writes for adults, and fails miserably, he's fairly repetitive like Eddings (how many world ending threats can occur which result in Richard being separated from kalam and them having to prove their love for each other can there be?), and far to preachy for my taste.

[mxlm]

GK,no question.

[Shurque's biatch]

I still have a soft spot for Eddings and my daugter is reading the Belgariad right now.

I tried 5 times to convince myself that Tairy could be read, but failed every time and gave up. But who doesn't like blood red leather clad hawt chicks beating the puke out of you? And people are stupid...

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Goodkind sucks.

[Vengeance]

Eddings was one of the first that I read all of those years ago. I believe that I still might have some of his books. I too wouldn't hesitate to recommend Eddings to a young reader. Goodkind should have quit after his first book. Which was mediocre. As an adult fantasy writer he sucks. Way to preachy for my tastes, plus he can't end anything. By now Richard should be able to destroy every army that is put into the field against him, instead he is doing that same thing that he did in the first book. At least by the end of a edding series a couple of the characters are older.

[Krupee]

Oh, yes i agree with you all. And I might (double lines over the might) recommend eddings to my eleven year old brother, but the point of the thread was to actually discuss both authors writing styles. I have no doubt that Goodking's books are more monotonus, whiny, preachy, boring,..... and purely worse. But my point (and i can't see how anyone fails to notice this) is that Eddings is far worse WRITER than goodking. I mean in terms of dialogue, character creation and depth, world creation and depth,.....

I dont know about you people, but every time I try to re-read an eddings book I feel utterly insulted and throw it away by the third or fourth page.

So keep in mind we're talking about the actual writing and not the story. (I know goodking's story sucks much more)

ps: (And for everyone who still has a soft spot for eddings, just pick up The Younger Gods (His latest crap), and it will be gone in no time.)

[The Tyrant Lizard]

I have to say I read Belgarath the Sorcerer and liked it. For me it is Eddings' best book. I didn't mind the Belgarion or the Mallorian either. I thought some of the characters were pretty good, especially that knight who went round bashing everyone up.

Having said this, I will probably never read another Eddings book as long as I live.

This can't be said for Goodkind though, for although I loath the repetative style he writes in, I have now suffered for nine long books and am still waiting to find out what the f*&k is going to happen to the world when all is said and done. I am compelled to read to final instalment of the Sword of Truth... even though I really dont want to.

I voted for Goodkind. (as worse)

[Morgoth]

well, Eddings is a writer who's main body of books is aimed at the YA market, and so it would be somewhat strange to pretend otherwise.

TG writes for grown ups and fails, Eddings - at least wrote for, I haven't read his later stuff - young adults. It makes all the difference

[mxlm]

Eh, Un Lun Dun was aimed at the YA market, but still managed to be damned good.

Though I haven't read any Eddings, mind.

[Krupee]

mxlm;220195 said:

Eh, Un Lun Dun was aimed at the YA market, but still managed to be damned good.

Though I haven't read any Eddings, mind.

Good for you, your life is so much better that way.

And I totaly agree with you. Just because he's aiming for a younger audeince doesn't mean his writing has a right to be rubbish.

[Shryval]

As my finger hovered over the Goodkind option, I suddenly remembered "Redemption of Althalus" by Eddings. Anyone who writes a book like that, YA market or not, deserves a lingering painful death, and my vote in this poll.

[Mort]

Umm, out of interest why wasn't Feist included on this...

Seriously, why bother having this debate? It's the equivalent of a celebrity deathmatch... next thing you know someone will post a poll asking who is the most irritating author when it comes to FINISHING a story - Rob Jordan (prior to the unfortunate case of mortality), GRRM (for the half decade in between books), JV Jones (half a decade and counting), etc

And after that debate, we all know we'll have a debate about who writes the most cardboard cut out characters, or the worst plot devices, or who was most repressed, or which author should be sent to the insane asylum... C'mon folks, there's more to discuss than merely who the worst author is in fantasy... because quite honestly, if you're suggesting that Goodkind and Eddings are the two worst fantasy authors in the pantheon, you have not been exposed to as much of the bad as you think (I reiterate my point about Feist, especially King's Buccaneer and Prince of the Blood).

But, to the question at hand. It has to be the Fantasy Tough Love Man himself, Terry Goodkind.

Eddings writes the equivalent of action flicks (or Matthew Reilly thrillers) - you get cut-out 1-D characters, corny one-liners (the thing that most appealed to me about Eddings), buddy/love moments, and a fairly derivative story that offers little in the way of surprises. Sure, if you want something to feed your mind you don't read it, but then again you don't go watch an Arnie movie for its self-improving qualities either!

On the other hand, Goodkind, as so many have said, pretends to write for a sophisticated audience. However, the characters are even more one dimensional, the story is not just repetitive but actually THE SAME!! This is the equivalent of the trashy straight to video sequel that has a different actor but the same script (and the ones which I have blanked from my memory). Far from being edifying, this sort of writing is actually deleterious!

Apologies for the griping, but I'd rather discuss good fantasy on this board rather than ranting about which particular author makes me want to hurl.

And my final thought: for every Arnie Blockbuster, and Franchise Sequel, there is also a cinematic masterpiece that is far more worthy of discussion than the others mentioned in this sentence.

[Malaclypse]

Mort has a point - this poll could use a few more options and perhaps would be better as 'the best of the worst' kinda thing. The TSR writers of the 80's could fill up a poll of their own (Weis & Hickman, Troy Denning, Ed Greenwood, R.A Salvatore, Douglas Niles (grrrr), Richard A. Knaak, etc. etc.)
Feist I enjoyed until that one with 'Falcon' in the title - that was utter shite. Same with Sean Russell, loved 'Initiate Brother' but the last one I read was absolutely terrible. A more interesting question is whether this phenomenon is a result of the reader's increasing sophistication or the writer's deterioration. Anyway...

As it stands, Eddings pwns Goodkind hands down. Goodkind is essentially writing the same kind of fantasy as Eddings, though he likes to imagine the juvenile philosophical ranting he ladens it with lifts it to the heights of high literature, which just makes him an absurd and pitiable human being as well as a mediocre-at-best writer. That is, they're both proponents of didactic fantasy. Eddings' books are basically a race against time- if the protagonists actually get their hands on their enemies, the outcome is certain. Similarly, when Richard the Dickhead decides he's had enough, his enemies are crushed flat. The reader knows from page one that the heroe(s) will succeed eventually so there's very little tension. Eddings, in the first 9.75 books anyway, does much better in that there's loads of supporting characters who were quite compelling for the genre at the time (and could die) and were fun to read. Goodkind only has Richard and Kahlan, neither of whom are ever going to die (well, maybe in the last book but meh).

I admit I enjoyed the first couple SoT books in the same mind-candy way I enjoyed most of Eddings first ten. The pathetic objectivist bullshit made the rest of the series unreadable. In short, you have to be already sympathetic or a Goodkind-convert to Objectivism to truly appreciate the rest of the books since there's no real story given that you know for a fact that Richard will triumph in the end and Kahlan will be almost-raped at least once. This appeals to some (read: a disturbingly large group of) people. I perceive Goodkind's 'message' as: 'Socialism is bad, sexual perversion is good', which just doesn't appeal to my worldview. Plus Ayn Rand was a vindictive cow who wrote one interesting pholosophical piece regarding the tyranny of pregnancy and nothing else of note to scholars. Her relative popularity was due entirely (IMO) to the resonance of her ideas with existing American values (if they can be termed as such).

I still remember waiting for whatever dyslexic retard who possessed the library copy of the next book in the Belgariad/Mallorean so I could devour it in 4 hours. It was great stuff for the time, which was never true of Goodkind.

[/rant]

[Gem Windcaster]

I voted for Goodkind, because he bored me. Eddings at least entertained me for a couple of pages. Sersly.

[McLovin]

McKiernan should've been on this list too.

Anyway, I voted Goodkind, bcs he's just an all-around dick...

[Abyss]

Eddings writes good entry level young reader fantasy fictions. Yes, some of his books are bad, but overall, on the basis of net positive or negative effect on the world as we know it, i think Eddings has been one of the good guys. His five-volume epics pre-date RJ, SE and others.

Goodkind makes my eyes bleed.

Also, he's gone from mediocre fantasy writer with a few good ideas and a lot of wierd issues to outright activist masquarading as author. Also, eyes. Bleed.

Eddings fans eventually move on to bigger and better things.
Goodkind fans eventually move on to killing small animals and eating their tongues.

Decades from now, a parent could more or less safely buy 'The Belgariad' for their 12-yr-old.
Anyone buying 'Wizard's First Rule' for a 12-yr-old should probably be neutered.

'Althalus' was horrible tripe, and i have read precisely no other Eddings since finishing 'The Tamuli' and realizing i had outgrown him. But for what they were when i read them, i liked Eddings' earlier books.

Goodkind frustrates me because he does average one or two 'cool'/novel ideas per book, but by the time the evil chicken made an appearance i was done and never looked back.

- Abyss, notes that mostly, Goodkind makes my eyes bleed.

[stone monkey]

Goodkind, who to my mind is both ethically horrifying and not a particularly talented writer stylistically. Although to be completely fair, you have to recognise his pluck and nerve for coming up with new ways - regrettably, not interesting ones, however - of saying exactly the same bloody thing over and over again.

The Eddings, whose reactionary nature is less extreme and who also fall into the trap of telling the same bloody story each time are slightly more bearable. If only because their stuff is now marketed at people you enough not to have developed anything resembling good taste. Implying, at least, that it's expect for you to grow out of them.

[Krupee]

I noticed how every one says they've read until The Redemption and then stopped.

Well they missed out all the good parts....

people lets be fair. Goodkind was semi-partialy-minorly-abysmally good in his first few books. So was eddings. Goodking deteriorated in around three books. Eddings took nine.

Both writers are nearly the same give or take some quirks, but you have to admit eddings writing is worse, even if it's for children. Really all anyone needs to do to know how bad eddings is, is to go read the reviews on his latest book: The Younger Gods from amazon.com. ( I'll present the genrel idea, there were around 40 reviews, 31 of them gave it only one star. And btw these people were his FANSSSSS. Some oh his old-harcore FANS.)

So anyone who thinks eddings writing is superior to that of gookind's probably just didn't read his latest books.