I'm going to do what I did with Pillars of Creation for this review. This book makes me too angry to sit down and calmly write out my thoughts on why it is so absolutely terrible, and insulting to the intelligence of anyone who reads it. I just cannot even with this book. I posted my notes below, if you want to read my thoughts as I read through the book, in lieu of writing out an actual review. I tend to use more profanity in my notes, and less professional language, grammar, and punctuation than I do in my actual professional (well, not so much anymore) reviews. I had so much to bitch about in this book that it does continue down into the first post of the comments section, because I exceeded the Goodreads post limit. This book is a slap in the face to any fan of the series before this point. I will never pick it up again. Terry Goodkind should be ashamed of himself for it.
All right, I'm gonna band-aid this one. Just rip it off and get it over with while I mull over what all I want to say in my review of Pillars of Creation. It'll be less painful that way. I hate this book with a fiery passion, and I don't need it hanging over me, asking to be reread and reviewed
20% done...
You know what, after rereading Pillars of Creation this last week, the beginning of Naked Empire is actually pretty good (comparatively). Oh, I know it takes a steep nosedive not much further from where I am, but the beginning is actually far better written than the previous book. The conversations between characters are not soul-shatteringly repetitive here, and the recaps of previous books have been kept to a minimum (so far). An interesting mystery has been introduced in the finding of another set of Boundaries that have gone down, and a note of dramatic tension has been added in Richard's Gift causing headaches again. This is a pretty decent beginning, and it's far better written than anything we saw in the previous book.
There is one thing, and one thing only that I actually enjoy about this book. And that is Zedd's storyline. This is the book that really humanized him for me. Before he was just a wacky, unconventionally wise old man who does and says silly things. Here, he really steps up and becomes more of a well rounded character. I love how he pretty much spends the whole book, just looking back on his life, seeing his successes, and his failures. Remembering the people he's loved and lost. Thinking of all the things he's done, and all the things he wished he could have. All of it leading up to him almost sacrificing his life to keep the Imperial Order from using the things of magic that they took from the Wizard's Keep against Richard. Frankly, I kind of wish that he actually had died in this book. It would have made far more sense, narratively. His storyline in this book would have been the perfect, heartfelt sendoff that his character deserved. Rather than the senseless, ignoble death he received in Severed Souls. It would have shown the due respect that the character and the fans deserved.
One thing that I do have to question is, um... why is Jensen still hanging around? Her story is over. She and Tom should have wandered off to live happily ever after. Now she's just taking up space, because she's a pointless addition to the cast. She has nothing of value to add to any of the conversations, and basically remains silent most of the time, because she really doesn't have much business still being a part of the story. She doesn't belong in this book. She already had her story, and that story is over with. You could argue that her story was pointless and didn't need to be told to begin with, but that's another argument. This is something that has always annoyed me about this book. Why is Jensen still here? She does nothing of value. She says little of value. She's just there because reasons. She's basically just baggage from the previous story, being carried around by the characters in this story, because Goodkind didn't think to leave her behind when he should have.
41% done...
You know what I hate? Straw man arguments. You want to show me that your ideals are better than someone else's? THEN PUT THEM ON AN EQUAL FOOTING, DOUCHEBAG!!! Show how GOOD the other ideal can be. How happy it can make people. How peaceful life can be while following it. Don't come out of the gate belittling it and telling me how stupid it is and how stupid anyone that believes that way is for believing it. That is not the way to show me that your way is the better way. Winning a straw man argument doesn't show me that your way is better. It shows me that you don't even understand what you are fighting against, and refuse to even try to. Any victory of your ideals over straw man ideals is empty and hollow, because it isn't a victory at all. I can remember going to a lecture on writing by Brandon Sanderson, and he gave some very good advice on showing your own ideals triumphing over others. He said start with the other side of the argument, and make that side as strong as you possibly can. Only then are you ready to write your side of things. And if you made the other side too strong, and can't figure out how to make your side of the argument win, maybe you're on the wrong side of the argument to begin with. When the ideals of the protagonist are so much stronger than those of anyone else, there really isn't even a point of having them clash at all. Why even bother? It just wastes everyone's time.
I really hate how Richard acts in this book. He has no tolerance or patience for anyone with beliefs different from his. The moral of this story has always seemed to me to be "Anyone who believes differently than you is an idiot, and should be mercilessly persecuted until they set aside their beliefs and join with yours." Richard is openly contemptuous toward Owen and his beliefs. He makes jokes at the man's expense. He's extremely sarcastic. He belittles the man, and treats him like a stupid child. And for what? Because the man has different beliefs? Our hero, Ladies and Gentlemen. Richard is as much a bigot and tyrant as Jagang in this book. He refuses to have any beliefs other than his, and he forces others to follow his beliefs. Guess what you're fighting against the Imperial Order for there, pal? If you're fighting for freedom, why are Owen and his people not free to believe what they wish? That doesn't sound like freedom to me? That sounds like trading one form of enslavement for another. And Terry Goodkind can fuck off if he thinks I didn't see it that way. He rails against the evils of socialism, and yet, is not forcing all people to follow your own beliefs regardless of their wishes the very heart of socialism? HOLY FUCKING HYPOCRISY BATMAN!!! And people ask me why I have no respect for Terry Goodkind as a human being. It should be pretty fucking obvious why I have no respect for Terry Goodkind as a human being. Read this book and you will see.
And you know that repetition? You know, the stuff that made the previous book SO. FUCKING. UNBEARABLE? Yeah, it's back with a vengeance. Here's a little tip for anyone looking to be a better writer. The reader only needs an explanation once. When one character explains something to another, you do not need to have that character, in turn, explain it to a third in exact detail. The reader already knows. You are free to gloss over the explanation, and the book will be all the better for it. (I.e. "Joe related to Terry what Bob had said to him earlier.") That's all it takes. It's easier to write, it's easier to read, and it uses far fewer words, leaving you free to embellish another part of the book, and still keep to your target word count. Repeating the same explanation within the same chapter is going to annoy and bore your readers, and it's going to also make them feel insulted by you, because you clearly don't have faith in their ability to understand the explanation the first time around.
The part of this book where Richard questions Owen is just excruciating to read. For the aforementioned way that Richard acts, and for the insane amount of repetition. And I do mean insane. Anyone that repeats themselves this much cannot be a sane, well-balanced individual.
Another thing that I actually do like about this book, is Nathan throwing Anne into prison. That fucking woman deserves it and more. She kept him a prisoner for a thousand freaking years, and she expected to walk up and imprison him again? Yeah, she can go to hell, and Nathan should have left her there to rot for the rest of her life imo. I love how he does it to prove a point, even if he doesn't let the punishment stick. It's very effective.
Gawd this book makes me angry. Not because I disagree with Goodkind's message, per say, but more because of the utter ineptitude with which he presents it. At the core, I think he has a justified point. People should not expect others to do all of their fighting for them. If you're not willing to stand up for yourself, why should you expect someone else to? However, I can also make the allowance that there are those who may not be able to, or those who would rather die than harm another human being. There are many different people, and many different ways of seeing the world. It's just the way he presents this argument is extremely offensive. He has no empathy for anyone who has even the slightest degree of different belief than he does. He openly mocks those that do not believe as he does. He basically tells anyone who does not share his exact beliefs that they are evil, and should die for it. This is a very dangerous line of reasoning to follow with your beliefs, because you know what? You're not going to be right all of the time. Your world view is not the only world view that works, and insulting those who don't see it your way is a good way to lose, oh, say, about 75% of your readership, going by sales for Naked Empire vs. sales of Chainfire. Just, the absolute idiocy and lack of understanding for anything even resembling reality that Goodkind displays in this book is what makes me angry. I feel that trying to force the world into your vision of black and white is an idiot's errand. The world is not, nor will it ever be, straight up black and white. Refusing to even allow for differing opinions, and different belief structures than your own is just plain stupid. Guess what pal, there are more than two opposing belief sets in this world. Hell, there are probably as many beliefs as there are people on this sorry planet of ours. There may be black and white, but there's about seven billion other shades of color between them, and the sooner you grasp that concept, the easier a time you're going to have living in this world. Just... like... Fuck you, Terry Goodkind. Seriously. Just, fuck you. You cannot force the world into your view, and your fantasy fulfillment of having Richard do it for you is more than a little pathetic, and telling about your character and intelligence.
And again... why is Jensen still here? When a character adds NOTHING to the story in any way, which describes her to a T in this book, that character does not belong in that story. Every character must have a purpose, whether it be a crucial thing that she will do in the story, giving the protagonist an idea he needs to win, comic relief, ANYTHING. Jensen does none of these things. She is just there taking up space. She hasn't had a single relevant line in almost half of the damn book.
55% done...
Okay, here we start getting into why I dislike this book so much. Richard will, at the drop of a freaking hat just go off for PAGES on a rant about Terry Goodkind's flawed version of morality. Usually someone will say something completely unrelated to him, and he'll just go off on a tangent ranting about the evils of this, or the virtues of that, and then whoever spoke to him will be like, oh, yeah, that makes sense... except for the fact that it had nothing to do with what they were asking in the first place, but whatever. I call this Goodkind's flawed version of morality, because, as I said earlier, it only takes into account good and evil. Black and white. It completely ignores and has no room for any of the billions of other shades of color between. I'm afraid that morality, right and wrong, good and evil, ARE NOT THAT FUCKING SIMPLE!!! And omg does he beat this dead horse. I would say that at least 25% of the entire word count of this book is Richard ranting about one thing or another. Okay, look, if you want to share your views on the world with your readers, that's fine. Few, if any of them are going to thank you for it, and will certainly thank you not to do it again, but it's fine if that's what you want to do. The problem here is that halfway through this book, Terry Goodkind forgets that he's also supposed to be telling a story. The book becomes nothing more than a vehicle for his beliefs, forgetting character, forgetting story, forgetting any sort of drama in the situation, so that Richard can rant for dozens of pages to little point or purpose within the narrative. This is not okay. It strikes me as very ironic that a book that, at it's heart, is about balance, HAS NONE. There has to be a balance between all of the ranting, and, you know, ANY-FUCKING-THING ELSE!!!
80% done...
Something that has always annoyed me about this series is that Goodkind often describes Richard as "Patient, but intolerant." Okay... there's a pretty strong argument for the fact that you can't really BE patient while also not being tolerant, but I'm not here to debate philosophy. Richard certainly is intolerant of any views but his own. He openly shows this at pretty much every opportunity. But then there's the other half of the statement. Okay, first of all, if you have to tell me that your character is patient, you're doing it wrong. A patient character, to me, is a character that, you know, SHOWS PATIENCE WITH OTHERS. This is something that Richard has NEVER done in this entire series. He has never once shown any patience with anyone ever. He is a very impatient man. And yet Goodkind continually tells me that he is patient. No. He isn't. He really, really isn't. He is openly contemptuous. He is sarcastic. He belittles others in their beliefs, and openly mocks them in ways that they don't understand, so that they don't even know that they're being mocked. He does this while spouting sermon after sermon on the evils of their ways, and shows no patience whatsoever when they are slow to leave beliefs that they have held all their lives behind just because he told them that they are wrong. This is not patience. It is the exact opposite of patience. He is both impatient and intolerant, and when you combine that with his absolute refusal to accept any other way than his black and white view of the world, he murders you. (See Anderith's fate) What I'm trying to say here is that Goodkind wouldn't know what actual patience was if it walked up to him and waited quietly to get his attention.
So, okay, Goodkind wants Richard to preach, but he also needs to cram in those recaps of the series up to this point, because, you know, anyone reading book 8 of a series clearly never read the seven books that came before it, and they'll be completely lost without having the entire saga retold to them in rant form. So, genius that he was, he combined the two into one. Richard rants his ranting little ass off for literally like 30 pages, and spends a goodly portion of that retelling the entire series up to this point in the process. Okay, doubly boring and objectionable from where I'm standing. First of all. I read the seven previous books. I don't need a detailed account of what happened in them. Have Richard say something like, "And then he explained how he and Kahlan met, and their fight to protect the New World from Jagang." That's all you need. I don't need 17 pages of recaps. You just need one line to say that Richard told these people his story. And just the sheer amount of stroking his own dick that Goodkind does in this rant has me feeling like I should be drenched in cum. Which is not a very pleasant feeing. And oh, boy, that's not even the worst part of this section. Immediately. And I do mean immediately. People who were utter pacifists before listening to this speach, all start clamoring to be the first to step up and friggen shank a bitch. When one of them actually does kill someone, all of the others congratulate him for having done it, as if they hadn't spent the entirety of their lives believing that what he just did is the greatest of all sins, and carries the greatest of all of their punishments.
This is not how humanity works. People who are set in their beliefs do not simply give them up for yours because you tell them all about it. I spent some time as a Mormon Missionary. Yes, one of those annoying young men in suits who knock on your door and try to change your religion. I can tell you from long experience that no one on God's green earth is simply going to switch their entire belief system for yours just because you tell them that they're wrong. And, in fact, telling them that they're wrong only sets them further against the idea of converting. What you really have to do to convert people to your way of thinking is SHOW THEM WHAT THEY'RE DOING RIGHT FIRST, AND THEN BUILD UPON IT!!!! Use your common beliefs to bridge the gap between theirs and yours. No one is going to be converted to your ways because you tell them their beliefs are stupid, and incorrect, and that they are evil for believing the way that they do. That is not how people work. But if you show them your common ground, and then lead them into what makes your way so much better than theirs, and allow them the decision as to which way they prefer to believe, then, every now and then, not always, or even very often, really, someone will come to see that your beliefs may be the better way. Insulting and belittling people for beliefs that are different from those you wish to convert them to only sets them against you more firmly. I mean, does Goodkind even understand human at all? Because he is failing at it pretty hard with this book.
Also, the implication that pacifists are incapable of seeing evil is rather offensive and shows an extreme lack of intelligence and understanding by the author. If you're going to write about something, do the time to research it. Don't just use what you personally believe without even bothering to find out if what you think about it is actually true. This is an amateur mistake. If you just plain don't care if you're being true to life or not, well, maybe you shouldn't be writing books to begin with. If you are unwilling to put in the bare minimum of effort to research the ideology of the opposition for your book, then you really need to find yourself another career. This is lazy, offensive, and it makes the author look like a colossal moron, and something of a Nazi as well.
There is too much bullshit in this book to be contained in Goodreads' character limit. Continued below in the first comment of the comments section...