What I loved about this book was the subtle commentary on society. I love when this is portrayed through well thought out fiction, and it was masterful. The reason I am writing this, however, was because I am annoyed. In the final chapter, the author decides to drop the veiled implications, and actually makes a direct reference that makes clear his total distaste and distrust of Christianity. Now, I don't have a problem with the story, and even the social commentary that leaned towards his distaste. Usually through veiling the implications, you merely point out the flaws of the system, not just bash the system itself overall. This is great for progress, and making your point. However, by changing his wording and directly referencing aspects of Christianity in our world, the skill changed.
I felt as though, with that single sentence, the chapter became a "letter to the editor". It was not thoroughly explained, it was just an opinion, and it was a weak stab that would be expected to be accepted as part of the fiction. It basically seemed like a cheap shot, and it was lame. I felt disappointed. Now, a running theme in the book was truth, and finding truth despite what some people might tell you, and using that advice, I would hope the readers will not cling to every word Mr. Goodkind has fed to them. 99% of his writing was brilliant, and so full of messages promoting free will, intelligence, logic, love, and so forth! He accomplished so much! However, by bringing it into the realm of the real, he tarnished the masterpiece. That moment shattered my "suspension of disbelief" as Tolkien would call it. Luckily, that shattering occurred on the final pages.
All in all, I recommend the book. Some people wouldn't even notice the line I'm sure, but to me it was a real slap in the face. It changed the feeling slightly, and I am forced to ignore it to ensure I focus on the perfection otherwise. If you need a good read, pick this one up. The first book is called "Wizard's First Rule". It's amazing. Now that I am done reading this, I can actually begin to read the newest short story anthology I purchased that I had to buy online, as it was only available in Britain. It is a collection by my favourite author of the genre, Scott Edelman. What kind of fiction is this book? Zombie short stories, of course.
Seeing as you're someone who reads a lot, I have a question. Are we as readers entitled to make assumptions about a character's past even if it is not explicitly stated? That is to say, if a character is clearly "damaged" and has a lot of baggage, but the cause for this isn't mentioned in the book, does this suggest a past that exists beyond the pages?
ReplyDeleteIn most cases, a character in a book is supposed to be considered a real person. As a real person would need a certain kind of past to be damaged, you may assume that he has something in their past that caused it. However, it could be no more than speculation based on what normally causes this in a person. If it doesn't have it in the book, you can't be sure of what happened. Hope that helps
ReplyDelete