Soul of the Fire (Sword of Truth, Book 5) | Terry Goodkind

Soul of the Fire (Sword of Truth, Book 5) | Terry Goodkind | Tolerable, but far from gripping

books:

Soul of the Fire (...

	Soul of the Fire (Sword of Truth, Book 5) Terry Goodkind, 1999 - 508 pages average customer review:based on 646 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

Richard Rahl has traveled far from his roots as a simple woods guide. Emperor of the D'Haran Empire, war wizard, the Seeker of Truth--none of these roles mean as much to him as his newest: husband to his beloved Kahlan Amnell, Mother Confessor of the Midlands.But their wedding day is the key that unlocks a spell sealed away long ago in a faraway country. Now a deadly power pours forth that threatens to turn the world into a lifeless waste.Separated from the Sword of Truth and stripped of their magic, Richard and Kahlan must journey across the Midlands to discover a dark secret from the past and a trap that could tear them apart forever. For their fate has become inextricably entwined with that of the Midlands--and there's no place so dangerous as a world without magic...

for more information click here

My Third Favorite Of The Series

Soul of the Fire is part of the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind. Following the story of Richard, it's written well enough that you can relate to the struggles of the people involved, even if the issue is other worldly. Soul of the Fire, the fifth book in the series, is my third favorite, only being surpassed by Wizards First Rule (Book 1) and Confessor (Book 11 and final). In all the books, Richard learns a little more about what he can do, but I think in this book, he really starts to grasp larger concepts and it makes for a really exciting ending. Really, a great book.

for more information click here

Tolerable, but far from gripping

I had not read any books in this series previously, so I expected I was reading at my own risk, and could look up things I didn't understand in internet summaries. I didn't have to look a single thing up, and not because the book was particularly self-contained. Goodkind explained all the backstory in great detail-- which must have been excruciating for people who weren't new to the series.

None of the characters moved me. I was confused by Kahlan at first because she seemed to consider everything Richard said completely idiotic (even when he was obviously right,) and I wondered why she'd married him if she found him so pointless. I lost my slight sympathy for Richard, however, as the book wore on. It irritated me that he seemed to be the absolute best at everything, from fighting to magic; I realize there's some degree of wish-fulfillment for Goodkind there, but it makes the other characters pretty irrelevant, and Goodkind's personal fantasies are of limited interest to me.

I also found Richard's personal philosophy ambiguous at best, for all the time he spends harping on it. I couldn't help seeing irony in the fact that, much as he nattered on about individualism and free will, he was delivering hostile ultimatums to anyone who didn't go along with his agenda. What about THEIR free will? Or is individualism only for when people agree with you? If this inconsistency was an intentional flaw in the character I would actually welcome it as a change from Richard being portrayed as entirely perfect, but I didn't get the feeling it was on purpose or that the author recognized it as an imperfection.

I actually enjoy political stuff in novels (heck, I have a degree in a political science field,) but this novel grated. I found the Anderith sections heavy-handed and overdone. It was an obvious political allegory, and in my opinion a rather poor one. I wish he'd focused more on making his imagined culture believable than on trying to make a statement about his own views. The potential negative undertones about minorities made me very uncomfortable.

I was also pretty uncomfortable with how many times Goodkind described the culture of the Mud People as like the main characters' cultures, holding compatible views, having the same values, etc. and thus being worthy of Richard and Kahlan's presence. On the surface that seems positive, but the implication is that cultures must somehow justify themselves as being like the dominant culture in order to be worthy of mixing. Richard and Kahlan couldn't just stay with these people because they liked them? They couldn't just be friends without an agenda? The Mud People didn't have sufficient worth outside of their similarities to Richard and Kahlan? The political posturing seemed pretty demeaning to minority cultures and suspicious of diversity.

The reliance on sexual violence as a plot device also bothered me. Unfortunately rape is often part of war, and sometimes as an organized strategy, but people do also do other bad things to each other. Not everyone who commits harmful acts is automatically a rapist. I'm not saying sexual violence can't play a part in a story (heck, I LIKE George R. R. Martin) and it is realistic-- but the extent to which Goodkind takes it is much too extreme. It often seems to be played for thrills and shock value, and possibly misogynistic fantasy, not to be accurate in his portrayal of the horrors of war. The armies seem to be more interested in rape than in actually fighting, and the emotional impact of sexual assault is greatly reduced by making it seem commonplace. Whatever Goodkind's intentions, by the end I was starting to wonder what he had against women.

On a more personal-taste note, I was very irritated by the continued reliance on the plot device of easily solved problems being turned into complicated dilemmas because characters who supposedly liked and trusted each other suddenly deceiving, lying to each other, not talking about things, and hiding the truth. It made no logical sense-- why are these people even friends, lovers, etc. if they can't even be honest with each other?-- and it really lessened the impact of dramatic moments. During the ending, which I think was supposed to be emotional and tragic, though only peripherally related to the rest of the story, but I kept thinking, "You realize this wouldn't have happened if you'd just talked to each other like normal people, right?" Yes, real people do stupid things, but it seemed entirely contrived.

I did find the ending of the primary plot (if you could call it that) rather rushed, but since it's a continuing series, I assumed Goodkind had plans to elaborate more in the future-- though this particular installment would have been more satisfying if it had a more complete plot arc.

This book isn't unreadable, and I had moments of enjoying it, but overall it's not one I would recommend.

Final note, for those who suggested Goodkind shouldn't be criticized because writing a novel is hard: yes, it is. If a professional puts his or her craft in the public arena, though, that person subjects it to criticism, from ordinary people as well as from other professionals. Goodkind is a professional writer, and as such has opened himself up to both positive and negative reviews. Whether or not the writer of a review could produce a better novel is beside the point; I don't have to be a better baseball player to have a negative opinion on the pitch that lost a team the World Series, or be a better actor to criticize a wooden performance in a film. A professional writer has to be prepared to accept critiques, not just praise. Not only other authors are entitled to have opinions about what they read.

for more information click here