 Yikes, I'm like to that. Kind of rugged individualism at its most magical. There are dragons. As I get more cartoonishly Disney than that, the rules are different. ["The Rules Are Different"] Hey guys, it's Liana, and I'm here today to talk about the sort of truth books. Yes, the series that everybody loves to hate. There are some of us who actually un-ironically love it. So today I'm gonna go over the good stuff, the not good stuff, the stuff that is my personal preference, to kind of conclude with a little wrap up so you can kind of decide for yourself if you think this is something that you should try. So what are the sort of truth books if you've never heard of them and you're like, what is this sort of truth series that you speak of? I'm so glad you asked. Sort of truth books are a fantasy series. Don't listen to what Terry Goodcut himself has to say about it. It is a fantasy series that came out largely in the 90s into I believe the 2000s. I think some of the newer books were coming out in the 2000s. And they are as cookie cutter fantasy as it gets, which is why it's hilarious that Terry Goodkind was saying that it was not fantasy. Let's conversation it for maybe not another day as it is kind of part of the not good stuff. So we'll get to that, I guess. Like I don't wanna spend too much of this video talking about Terry Goodkind because it's just like a whole other thing. The books themselves though are a fantasy series. It's got MacGuffin's galore, tons of quests and magical apocalypses, dragons and magical swords and maidens that can do magical things and battles, all the stuff. It basically any fantasy thing you can think of probably in the sort of truth series in some form or other. Why do they get hated on so much? A lot of it has to do with Terry Goodkind himself. But that's not to say that you can't dislike the books because you just dislike the books has nothing to do with the author. It obviously tastes or tastes and as we'll get to in the not good stuff portion they're not perfect books. But Terry Goodkind did not help with his own attitude and rhetoric. Again, he said that he was not even writing fantasy, that he was writing like philosophy or something, that he was just using fantasy as basically the playground in which to like philosophize or whatever, which like whatever dude. There's dragon on the cover of your book, it's fantasy. And also it's just hilarious to me because these books are such like magical quests filled with MacGuffins and like cinnamon roll characters and adorable creatures that like it's just so like I have such cognitive dissonance like reading that book or those books and then hearing what Terry Goodkind's say about them. I'm like, dude, are you like Jekyll and hiding on us because like these books do not read like what you're saying they are. But setting aside the fact that you know you might not think that his philosophy is great or inspired or good. It just doesn't even read like books that someone is trying to do that, you know what I mean? So it just I certainly didn't know anything about Terry Goodkind the man when I started reading them which probably helped. Like I might have colored my experience but I was blissfully ignorant of it when I started the books and then when I learned about what he was having to say about his own books, I was just like, hilarious. What? That's a lot of why they have a bad reputation. Some of his philosophies, he's quite libertarian. So that does creep into the narrative. But again, we'll get to that in the not good stuff portion. So that's just kind of like a basic overview of what these books are and like kind of why they have kind of a bad reputation or he has a bad reputation. Terry Goodkind himself has bathed away. So regardless of what you think of him he is no longer around to monetarily benefit from your patronage. So let's start with the good stuff. Stuff that I like about these books. The reason that I read them and loved them and now that I've started rereading them continue to love them because I was nervous rereading because I've since then read a lot of better books and I was like, oh maybe I'll find that like back then I was a sweet naive and experienced reader and that upon reread I'll be horrified. It's not the case. I very much been enjoying my reread. What I love about these books, a lot of it is the characters. He writes very likable, memorable, interesting characters that I personally enjoy spending time with. He writes them in despite the fact that they're magic there's a wizard and a seeker of truth and mother confessor which is his own kind of like magical thing that he's invented. Even though they're all these kind of like larger than life magic users they are really relatable in a lot of their internal struggles, their emotional journeys, the way they talk to each other, their humor is endearing. They have foibles and insecurities and hangups and flaws that again are really relatable and endearing and make me really root for them as characters. It makes me wanna see them find them a guffin and solve the mystery and win the day. Their prose itself is really easy to read. I often recommend sort of truth books to people starting out in fantasy because it is not hard to read. So if people are intimidated by the idea of reading adult fantasy it's really easy to read. He has a very approachable style of narration. The way that he explains things is very, again, approachable and easy to understand. He does repeat things a bit which a lot of fantasy authors do is sometimes annoying but I also appreciate it's necessary and it keeps refreshing your brain. What is this thing and what is its magic and how does it work and why are we here and what is all of this? So it's very easy to sink into his world and to just go on this merry adventure and to get what's going on and to like the characters and to get the thing and to understand and to just go with it. So it's not hard. There are a lot of female characters. There's a part of this that is in the not good portion of this video. I do think, credit where it's due, there are a ton of female characters and they are not like written as just kind of like objects for the hero to either lust after or to use. They are often POV characters. They often have layered and complex emotional journeys onto themselves. They are written as independent and strong. There's often times where he's written in instances for them to kind of soapbox about feminism. Shocks me every time. It's like, I feel like a woman would have written this and it's not. It's like some dude that looks like the villain of an 80s karate movie who wants to tell you that libertarianism is the way to go. But he is writing in strong female characters soapboxing about feminism and like, I'm here for it. So thank you. Oftentimes the female characters will be stronger than the male characters, will be wiser than the male characters. There is frequently more female characters than male characters unless you wanna count like the sort of nameless armies of men that are like in a war. Just sort of like, there's generally dudes around like these guards are all men this army is all men. But like the named characters, the POV characters, the people that we are hearing from that whose heads we are in are females a lot of the time. And that is fantastic. And sort of truth books being my kind of like first foray into adult fantasy. I hadn't yet experienced how rare that is especially in adult fantasy. And so honestly upon reread I've been slightly more impressed by these books than I was the first time because of that context that experience where I've read so many adult fantasies that are even better written than sort of truth. We're not just talking about like that adult fantasy. Like there's plenty of really excellent adult fantasy that is still kind of like devoid of female characters. Honestly, Joe Abercrombie, I think he writes females well when he does like especially in his new trilogy. So being down Glockta and Rika and in the standalone's Finry and Shine and the trilogy you do have Artie and Pharaoh. It's not like he doesn't have female characters. There are a lot more female characters in the sort of truth books. It's honestly kind of amazing that another immense appeal to me anyway and kind of I was trying to figure out like how I was able to just kind of chew through so many of these sort of truth books without like getting burned out. And it's because they're really episodic. Each book is kind of its own semi self-contained adventure not dissimilar from the style of kind of Marvel movies where there's kind of this overarching shared universe and overarching kind of plot but there's you know, the adventure of the week. So again, like these are characters that you're following throughout all of these books. You're gonna be with Richard and Katelyn and Zed for a long time. If you don't like them as characters well, I got bad news for you. All these books are about them. So that's the unifying factor and obviously the world grows and changes depending on what previous apocalypses have occurred in the previous books. But each book is a sort of self-contained adventure quest apocalypse. And so it's kind of a long book but it's also the whole meal in one book. It's never like a middle book. It's never, oh, this is the book to set up before we get to maybe the main apocalypse which is like 10 books in. You don't have to wait book after book after book for some kind of payoff. We set up the crisis in the beginning of the book. We figure out what is the thing we have to get? What are the alliances we have to make? Who do we have to go find and talk to and get on board? Then we do that and then we solve it. There's always a little tag at the end to be like but meanwhile, this other sinister thing may or may not be happening. See you next week for the next apocalypse. You get the adventure climax and payoff in each installment. So you can just kind of pick them up as you feel like it. You don't have to like keep reading to finally get through this and you don't have to like keep reading because you think, oh, I'm gonna forget what happened in the previous one. I don't have to reread it so then I better read it in quick succession because like, you know, then I will miss things you won't. It's their self-contained adventures more or less. So you could just pick one up when you feel like having an adventure with Richard Kalin and Zett. Another great thing in my opinion is there is a lot of fantastically written climactic action sequences. I think Terry Goodkind does a really good job really making you feel like the stakes are high. Making you feel like this is a highly charged emotional situation, even though it has that kind of like Marvel quality of you like, well, I know they're not gonna die. I know that ultimately they'll probably be fine because they're the main characters. They've got plot armor galore. But nevertheless, he does a good enough job setting the scene and putting you in the scene enough to where you really feel like this is like a climactic moment and you're like, oh my God, what's gonna happen? How is he gonna defeat them? Like I usually hate like the high magic, high action sequences in a lot of books, especially because like a lot of the time that stuff just works better on screen because it's just a visual spectacle. But like having to describe all that and maybe like what magic thing is doing, where and what and how and just what? Terry Goodkind I think does a really good job describing that in a way where like I can visualize it and feel the stakes and feel the tension and be rooting for the hero and be anxious that they, you know, there's some contrived ticking time bomb element. And I'm like, oh no, are they gonna make it? There's some prophecy that I'm like, this prophecy sounds real bad, but maybe it will come about the way that it sounds. It probably won't because it never does, but like what does it mean? Feeling invested even though I know it'll be fine. They're gonna be in the next book, the next 10 books. It'll be fine, but I feel the suspense and tension. I think he does that well. I do also think that like if we're gonna say that it's like philosophy, like Terry Goodkind was saying, I mean, absolutely not. Sir, no. But books and particular fantasy books will often include some kind of a philosophical element, something, you know, that illustrates why the protagonists are the protagonists, what their worldview is that will be kind of described in some kind of like a magical fantasy version of, you know, a faith system or like a good kind of magic or a philosophy or whatever it is and then the baddies and their evil philosophy and whatever. So there's a lot of stuff like that in these books that again, like if I'm meant to come away thinking, my God, that was truly deep and philosophical. I mean, you know, it is not. But if I'm reading it as just like a fun adventure fantasy and I'm not expecting anything deep out of it, there are moments that I'm like, that was a bit deep. That kind of made me go, hmm. For example, the recurring thing of the wizard's rules. The first book is called Wizard's First Rule in which you learn the wizard's first rule and in subsequent books you learn the wizard's second rule, the wizard's third rule and there are always some kind of sort of boiled down to like an essential life advice observation type thing that then will be kind of like Sesame Street style, the philosophy of the day that kind of gets applied or it becomes a recurring theme throughout the book. So the wizard's first rule is that people will believe something because they want it to be true or because they are afraid that it is. And that's true. And so this is kind of this unifying theme that is like woven throughout the first book, Wizard's First Rule, where you see multiple times where either characters knowing this use that to their advantage or characters fall victim to this themselves, characters recognize it or apply it and reflect on it. And throughout I was just like, yeah. And like I found myself especially in the present day, I think about the wizard's first rule a lot. And like, no, it's not the deepest thing I've ever heard. It isn't like, I'm gonna build my life on the philosophy of the wizard's first rule. Like it's not that deep, but it's a really succinct boiled down kind of like true so that I'm like, yeah, that hit the nail on the head. Kind of what I see going on all the time. You will believe something aspirationally or because they're afraid that it's true. And that's what drives people to have this conviction or to like really, really believe something. And that's why a lot of times facts don't matter to people because they're responding with emotions. Those emotions being aspirational, they want this to be true, or fear. They're afraid this is true and they're too afraid that it's true to be willing to accept that it's not. And it's little stuff like that in his books that I'm like, yeah, like I'd read this and I didn't completely roll my eyes at it. I kind of went, hmm, yeah, that's kind of true. And last on my list of good stuff is adorable side characters. I already said that I like a lot of characters than I do, but he also like grabs at your heartstrings with like adorable creatures. For example, there's a baby gargoyle in Stone of Tears, the second book that like has my whole heart. I mean, Night Eyes from the Farsier books has my whole heart, but Gratch also has my whole heart. They'll have to fight it out. One is a gargoyle, so I think the gargoyle will win. And it's reading stuff like that, like Richard playing with and taking care of and mothering a baby gargoyle and it being precious and adorable and silly. The instances like that that make me go, Terry Goodkind, that guy wrote this. Are you sure? This is way too adorable for that guy to have written this. All right, so let's get into the not good stuff. One of the main criticisms that I've heard about in particular Wizards First Rule, probably because people who have this criticism don't go on to read any other books. I'm not gonna say that it's not true in later books, but in any case, people say that it's extremely derivative and it is. This is the part of it that makes, that gives credence or makes me think it is possible that Terry Goodkind wasn't out to write a fantasy. He was out to write a philosophy and just like using fantasy as like the way to do that. It's the derivative quality of it that makes me feel like there might be some truth to that. I mean, and I don't think that Terry Goodkind is lying, but that was his goal. I just, I mean, like it's ridiculous and it really doesn't come across that way when you read it, but in any event, it is quite derivative. It's called the Midlands. Sounds very similar to Middle Earth. You basically have a chosen one that grows up in obscurity, kind of like King Arthur, where he kind of grows up for doesn't know who he is and then gets the magic sword and becomes King. Richard doesn't become King, but he does suddenly learn about his like actual true parentage and is given a magic sword, the sword of truth, and has to go on this epic quest that only he can do because he's basically the chosen one. The wizard character, Azetika Zulzerander. Yeah, he's a straight up wizard character. So you could say, yeah, he's just basically Gandalf, Dumbledore. This was written before Harry Potter. So arguably Dumbledore is a rip-off of Zed. You have the like grandfatherly wizard character that is the one introducing you to the wizard's rules, is the one that gives the sword to Richard, is the one that like says things in needlessly cryptic ways. However, Zed is like Loki, my favorite wizard of all time. He's hilarious, which again goes back to me loving the memorable characters because Zed could so easily be just like the wise and removed wizard, but he's kind of weird and eccentric and funny and relatable. And I love Zed. But again, having a wizard, wise wizard character is extremely derivative. All of these are like really trope filled, MacGuffin filled, contrived quests. Like there's some ancient book of magic that only this one particular person can read and that particular person more often than not is Richard. Then they have to find the magic jewel that can do the magic thing. And then they can save the day from the evil baddie wizard that wants like darkness terrain. You have like the battle between light and dark from the creator and the keeper of the underworld. And one wants, you know, death everywhere. And one is about life and, you know, the servants of the keeper, basically like servants of the devil is kind of the vibe. And it's my camera ran out of battery, but I believe I was saying it's not the most original thing ever or even a little bit. I remember somebody, and yeah, there's two to this as well. There's a Gollum type character in the first book. And yeah, he's got hardcore Gollum vibes. But then, you know, there's a lot of fantasies that have that Gergis got Gollum vibes. Dobby has Gollum vibes. Gergis is kind of hardly the first person to have a Gollum-ish character. So yeah, no, I mean, I'm not gonna say there's anything especially original about these books because there isn't. Also, Richard and Kaelin are arguably Mary Sue and Gary Stu, which I do think is kind of the case. But once again, it's a matter of how compelling it is. I personally think that their flaws and foibles and their personalities make this okay. Okay, at least insofar as like, I find them fun to read about. Are they kind of too perfect? Is it kind of unbelievable how Richard is just like good at all the things? Like all of the magics, all of the hero's quests, everything basically like Richard can do it and has to do it because here's the hero. Like, I mean, yeah. Is Kaelin like kind of insanely about us? Yes, she is. But also, do I love it? I love it. But they are absolutely Gary and Mary Sue and Stu. Like, I'm not gonna deny that. It's just true. I just, they work for me, so it doesn't bother me. Kind of going along with their derivative nature of it, the names and the words for stuff. Once again, it makes me think like there's some truth to the fact that Terry Gigan really wasn't here to write a fantasy or if he was, he wasn't especially creative about it because the way he names stuff has like no effort. I didn't realize until I wrote it down the other day, but the creatures that are called gars, like I mentioned before, Gratch, they're described as these kind of like winged, fanged creatures that are like of the night and have kind of basically bat wings and furry bodies and claws and teeth. And I was like, gars basically short for gargoyle. Didn't, didn't realize that, but yeah, that's why they're called gars. Not in a different name. We just took the first three letters of gargoyle, zero effort. Like, Gratch is adorable, so I'm fine with it. There's more to say about this than a name. You know, I'll get to that if on my list of not good stuff. There's a tribe of people called the mud people. They don't have a name other than that. It's not a nickname. It's not a pejorative. They are just called the mud people. Seriously dude. Again, as I mentioned, they're in the Midlands, which sounds like Middle Earth, where Richard grew up was Westland because it's in the West. Yeah, like you've got the creator and the keeper. They don't have cool names. They're just the creator and the keeper. Keeper of the underworld is like a concept as old as time and we couldn't get him a cool name. No, all right. There, I mean, I think Zedik Azul Zerander is a cool name for a wizard. But as far, I mean, I'm not aware of that being a rip off of anything, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there is another wizard in some other book that has a name similar to that, given the track record on other things. So, yeah. If you're here to get cool names and cool words and like new lingo, look elsewhere. These books do not have that, which is honestly kind of what makes them really approachable and easy to read. Like if this is your first foray into adult fantasy, no one needs to explain to them. It's not a million words you gotta memorize. Everyone can kind of figure out what's going on very quickly. There's kind of weird sex stuff in these books, which I would say is present in a lot of adult fantasy. But does it occur kind of a lot in these books? Yes, it does. Again, a lot of the execution of it isn't perfect. It's not my favorite thing about these books and it is definitely there and it happens like nearly in every book. But again, I would point to more well-regarded series such as the Witcher books that also have some weird sex stuff. So, do I love it? I don't, I don't love it. Not all of it do I hate. Some of it I think serves a purpose to the plot. Some of it I think could be less graphic and still achieve the same result plot-wise. Like it does come across occasionally as like just a fetish. I don't love that, but then this could be like a whole other video. Personally, my experience with it and my own life experience and my own personal preference and taste and my impression of how this was written, none of it is offensive to me, if that makes sense. There's things about it that are kind of strange, but ultimately the point that Terry Good kind of is making most of the time with this stuff is a point that tends more towards liberation, independence, freedom, which kind of goes along with his kind of libertarian ideals which is a whole other thing. But the takeaway from it as weird as it sometimes gets is kind of like the freedom to choose, the fact that women should not be shamed for their sexuality, the fact that the act of sex is something that should bring pleasure and that people abuse that and people can inflict pain this way and that those are harmful things. Like he's ultimately making those points. He's never romanticizing abuse, not really. He's never suggesting that it's okay to treat women as objects. He's never condoning rape. He's never doing anything like that. So while it does get kind of kinky and weird and it does, the takeaway, the message that is usually present in the way that it's framed or the way that characters are reacting to it or the way that characters later reflect upon it tends, the takeaway from it tends to be something that I would generally broadly agree with. And so that's another reason why it, I don't love that that's there so much, but the way that he's going about it and the takeaway that he seems to want us to take away is fine in my opinion, more or less. There are specifics about it, such as the next bullet point on my list that I take issue with, such as how heteronormative it is, which again is the thing that I would say is true of a lot of fantasy, in particular fantasy that came out before 2000. But even now, adult fantasy is extremely heteronormative. Not always, we're getting better about this, but it is hardly, like Terry Goodkind is hardly the only person to have ridden a heteronormative fantasy. He does have lots of male magic and female magic and like men are men and women are women and men love women and women love men. And he has a lot of, as I said, feminism, there's a lot of, you know, that you should equality of the sexes, that they should respect one another, that women can be strong and independent. He's not being a misogynist really in any way, in my opinion, but it is again, very heteronormative, which, you know, it's a fantasy world, so it doesn't need to be that way, but he's kind of baked it into the magic system. So it's not even just that he's only written straight couples. It's not that the only romance depicted, or romance is depicted are between men and women. Like again, the magic itself is very, I guess in matches heteronormative, it's very cis-normative, because again, there's masculine form of magic and feminine form of magic or like life force or whatever. And like, they do different things and operate differently, which doesn't really allow room for any kind of, like anything else on the gender spectrum beyond man and woman, which is hardly the only fantasy to do that, but it is not a good thing, so it's on my not good stuff. And it does occur to me that there is some illusion to female-female romantic attraction or feelings or whatever, but unfortunately, this kind of falls into a rather harmful stereotype about kind of abuse being the reason that someone has romantic feelings, same-sex romantic feelings. It's definitely like it's not stated, but that is the implication of how this is presented, which again, that's why it's on my list of not good things. As I've alluded to now several times, he had very strong libertarian ideals and this does come up in the books. He does have characters kind of soapbox about things in a way that not surprising to learn that he has had strong libertarian ideals. That said, again, for me, a lot of this doesn't really strike me as outlandish or unusual in a fantasy setting because a lot of fantasy has this rooting for monarchy and the restoration of the right full bloodline and basically benevolent dictators. A lot of fantasy in my experience has a lot of stuff that if we were gonna say that this is supposed to reflect to the kind of political structures that we support in real life, I don't think so. I don't think this kind of philosophy is unusual or out of place in a fantasy. And maybe that's a problem in fantasy. Maybe fantasy should better reflect actual power structures that we'd like to see in real life. But a lot of fantasy is like kings and queens and princes and princesses and the lost prince that needs to be restored to the throne because then, you know, goodness will reign. I don't really see people deconstructing that and being like, why are we rooting for the monarchy? Like, surely we should be rooting for a meritocracy and democracy, et cetera, et cetera. Fantasy is filmed with old fashioned ideas like this. So a lot of the libertarian-ness, it just kind of goes hand in hand to me with the sort of like chosen one. A chosen one is kind of rugged individualism at its most magical. The idea that you and you alone can save the day with the magic sword because you're the chosen one. Yeah, I mean, we're gonna say that I should believe this about myself in the real world and that people should approach life in this way. No. But I'm reading a fantasy book about a guy with a magic sword. There are dragons. The rules are different. So a lot of that just comes across to me. Like, obviously now knowing that Terry Goodkind held these views, again, it's not surprising. But at least the first time I read it, I was just like, yeah, well, that's how fantasy be. It doesn't like leap out at me as unusual or out of place. It just kind of goes with being a fantasy to me. The writing style itself isn't like beautiful. It's not like Patrick Roffus or Laney Taylor. Not, it's not even Abercrombie. I don't wanna say make it sound like Abercrombie has bad prose. Abercrombie has excellent prose, but he's not usually lauded for having incredibly lush, purple prose. He does have very artful prose, which I have frequently commented upon and do admire. Very Goodkind doesn't have especially artful or clever or beautiful prose. It's very straightforward, which was kind of what I mentioned in my good stuff, but is arguably not good stuff because it's not like the writing itself, like a story aside, philosophy aside, it's not like the writing itself is like deserving of attention that I mentioned. It's not a beautiful craft. It does the job and it does it well and it's for me compelling and very readable, but it's not like, I'm not sitting there going like, oh wow, this is a wordsmith. Like no, like it's, nah, it's just, it's not like that. There are sort of like really cartoonish villains, which this again, there's an asterisk on all of these. A lot of individual arcs of the individual books will have a character that seems to be your antagonist or Richard's antagonist. Seems to be the opposing force or the villain, but a lot of the time you'll get their perspective for a lot of the book and by the end of the book, they've joined forces and it's that like low key teaming up with Thor vibes where they've realized that ultimately while they were approaching a problem from really different angles and that's why they seem to be at cross purposes, side B had a good point and side A like has come to see things from side B's perspective and now sides A and B can join forces against C. A lot of the time, like I want to give credit for that because there's a lot of nuance to that, to having these opposing ideas find common ground and work together. So it seems like this is the villain at first until they kind of both see the error of their ways or realize that they're both taking things to extremes they didn't need to. The villain C that they're joining forces against is almost always dark and raw and the keeper. And that's where you get mustache twirling villain because they just want death and darkness to reign. But I mean, people love Lord of the Rings and that is Sauron's motivation. Death and Darkness to reign, which doesn't get more cartoonishly Disney than that. And kind of the biggest whoopsie daisy on my not good stuff list is the sort of benevolent racist stereotypes that are not great. As I already mentioned, the mud people, they're written as the sort of like this like tribal underdeveloped. You know what I mean. So they live in huts and they put mud in their hair. That's why they're called the mud people. They have like a shaman and a spirit house and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The noble savage. And I mean, I say benevolent racism because like Richard loves these people. Katelyn loves these people. They make friends with them. They try, they make an effort to understand their way of doing things and their life philosophies and their faith and whatever. And they end up being great allies of Richard and Katelyn. But the way they're depicted is again, it's that like noble savage. And Richard is kind of the white savior and they regard him as a friend to the community and he does help them. It's not like he doesn't. And Richard doesn't really do anything or say anything derogatory about the mud people. He's very pro mud people. But it's just, it's a little icky, that depiction. You're like, really? So again, they're not the villains. They're not painted as villainous, but it's not good. Don't love that. Once again, asterisks being asterisks. Individual characters who are from the mud people tribe are great characters. Like I really enjoy a lot of the characters that are from the mud people. And a lot of their interactions with Richard are hilarious because Richard is kind of a stick in the mud about things and they laugh at him. And he's like, he grew up kind of sheltered. So he's just unused to any cultural customs other than his own. And Kaelin is always having to explain to him because if I didn't mention this at all, but Kaelin, the mother confessor is basically the queen of fantasy UN, which I don't know why that's not on my good stuff list. There is basically a fantasy UN in the Midlands that represents all of the tribes and all of the peoples so that they all have a voice so that they kind of all live in freedom and security and not have to fear invasion from their neighbor so that even the mud people who live in stick houses, which yikes on bikes to that, they can live in freedom and security and they have a right to their own cultural practices and their own way of life. And that shouldn't be trampled on by people who have guns. The fantasy UN, I like that. Anyway, so if Kaelin speaks all the languages and knows all the cultural practices because she travels around as queen of the UN and so she's always explaining and translating to Richard, well, that's just what these people do. That's what they believe and you have to respect it and don't act like it's weird because that's rude. There's a lot of funny interactions where, you know, culture's clashing kind of thing where Richard is like, what, what, and she's like, that's how they do stuff. You better get used to it. So again, I love the mud people as characters. I don't love that this is a representation of people of color. I, mm, mm, could this have been done differently? Yes, should have been done differently, yes. But in the story there are some fantastic characters and character interactions that are with the mud people and it is what it is. So the next section I have is just personal preference, which again has been trickling into all of these, but basically kind of like why this works for me and which I have been alluding to the entire time. But yeah, I love the episodic nature that may be a thing that is something that you don't like. You want a 14 book series looking at you Wheel of Time that is just like one story and there's split into 14 parts. I've never read Wheel of Time but I'm pretty sure that's how Wheel of Time is. And I mean Song of Ice and Fire is like that. It's one ongoing saga, which is not even finished yet. There is something really great to me about the sort of truth books being these individual episodic adventures that you can just like go on this adventure and then be like, that was really great. I might, I might want another adventure in a bit. You know, not right now, not immediately. But yeah, that was great. And the next time you are like vibing an adventure, the next time you feel like going on a quest with Richard and Kaelin, read the next installment. They'll go on another quest, another apocalypse will be prevented. Have a great time. I love the episodic nature of them. If you want a great epic saga that spans 14 books that is just an ongoing story, that is not what these books are. I like that about them. The characters and humor, that is a very much a thing that is subject to taste and preference. A lot of apparently people find these characters to be cringy and derivative and to be Mary Sue and Gary Steele. And for me, the way that they're portrayed, the humor, their flans, their foibles, they work for me. I find them relatable, compelling, interesting and amusing. I think that the jokes are funny. I think that the romance between Richard and Kaelin is compelling, more compelling than a lot of romances that I've read in books that are romance books. I ship Kaelin and Richard a lot. I think that's one of the better romances that I've ever read and these books aren't romance books. But the strong romantic element is another thing about it that I'm like, I kind of sometimes feel like a woman wrote these. So if you like a strong romantic current in your fantasy, so your good kind's got you covered. And for me, these books provide an immense amount of escapism, like as I mentioned, I think in a wrap up or something. I don't really feel as transported by any other books as I do by this sort of truth books. And it's not because they are the best written. It's not because they are the most unique. It's not because they have broken the mold. In fact, they very much have not done any of those things. That's something about these adventures and the way Terry Goodkind writes them and the characters that populate them is just utter pure escapism. Like, you know that Harry, like writing in Tom Riddle's diary and just like being sucked into the pages. That's me when I read the sort of truth books. I'm just like living this adventure. Is it corny and cheesy and over the top? And do I know that I'll be fine and it's absurd? Yes, it is. But I am living for it when I read it. I feel like I'm getting to explore a fantasy world by having a good old time doing it. So for me, they provide the maximum escapism that I've really ever experienced reading books. As I mentioned before, I do think that the depictions of females overall is quite empowering and quite refreshing to see, especially in adult fantasy, which has a reprehensible lack of good female representation. Is it perfect? No. As I mentioned in the not good stuff portion, there are a lot of really fantastic, strong female characters that are layered and complex and compelling and interesting and they are many and they are varied. It's not like you've got this like one type of female. You just keep giving her a different hair color but it's because of the same female over and over. They are very different characters and they have very different approaches and philosophies and personalities and different strength and weaknesses. Some are physically strong, some are clever, some are kind, some are scheming. Like you've got them all. I love that. And last but not least is Richard himself. He is a cinnamon roll grumpy Thor. That's basically how I describe and picture him because he is a Dudley Do-Right type character where he's gonna save the day, fight the good fight, do the good thing. He's the seeker of truth. He has the sword of truth. He's gonna fight for justice and goodness and defeat the baddies who are here to spread darkness. Like yeah, he's also kind of stubborn. He's actually very stubborn and grumpy about it. He's very oddly prudish, which is hilarious because most of the characters in these books are not very prudish at all. It's only Richard. And this isn't depicted as like he's got it right and they've got it wrong. A lot of the time they're laughing at him and the books seem to be saying that he's wrong and that he's gotta get over it, which is funny every time it happens. He's this like lovable grump who's like, he wants to do the good thing, but sometimes he gets in the way of himself. And then occasionally he goes kind of like dark mode, which is when he gets, you know, the magic comes into it and he's on like hell hath no fury like a Richard scorned. He has his own idea of what is right and wrong. There's a lot of rugged individualism like that in fantasy books. Geralt from the Witcher books is a lot that way. He's got his own idea of what is right and wrong and that's what you're living by. It doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks. There's a lot of might makes right in Witcher books as well. Richard kind of like by the strength of his own sword and his own arm, he's just gonna like fight the fight that he thinks is right. But I think he's a compelling character for that reason. I think the characters around him offer a good counterpoint and a good balance to this. It's not like it's only Richard. He has people like Kaelin and Zed and Addy and later some other characters that there's just too many characters, I think. But that sometimes start out as the sort of like antagonists that end up becoming the allies who call Richard out on some of his position, some of his opinion, some of his approaches and sometimes he'll make them change their mind as well but it's never just that. It's never just Richard being right and everyone else being wrong and them eventually seeing the light of Richard's way of doing things. A lot of the time Richard's being a stick in the mud. He's being stubborn and he's refusing to see things as a gray area and his other characters around him will have to break this down until he finally gets over whatever block he's got on it and finally lets himself see that, no, you're right. You're right, I was being extreme about this. You're right, that's true, I was wrong. And I think that's interesting and compelling and endearing and it makes me root for it because Richard isn't just, he isn't just too perfect and he's also not just constantly rewarded by the narrative. He gets put in his place, he suffers a lot, he gets punished for being stubborn and I like it. So in conclusion, should you read the sort of truth books? Well, if any of what I described as being positive sounds good to you, then I'd say yes. Basically, if you just heard they're bad and you heard Terry Goodkind as kind of nuts, he was a bit nuts but if you can forget that, if it's not, I know this depends on the person, it depends on the situation, it depends on the author in particular. Sometimes you're just not able to forget what you know about an author and maybe you feel like you shouldn't. But again, I would remind you that Terry Goodkind has passed away. So this isn't a question of monetarily supporting an author that you think has some wacky ideas. He's no longer with us, so will in no way be better than him if you tried out these books. It's so bizarre to me that he thinks, or he said the things that he did about his own books because they just don't read like, they were written by somebody that thinks that. I remember even when I first read them, I didn't know anything about him. When I just had the picture of him on the back of the book to go off of, every single time I was shocked. Like obviously I knew what he looked like because I had a lot of the books and his pictures on all of them. But every time I got to the end of reading this like fun adventure quest with baby gargoyles and like a grumpy Thor and wonderful feminist soap boxing with a magical UN and just like all the best escapism and I finished that book and then I'd look at Terry Goodkind's karate villain image on the back of the book and I'd be like, he wrote this? Are you sure? So yeah, if you go into them open-minded expecting to have just a good time, like don't expect any great, amazing, incredible ground-breaking philosophy or fantasy epic. It's not. It's not the greatest thing I've ever written. It is not breaking barriers. It is not gonna blow your mind. It's not gonna be the most beautiful prose you've ever read. It's not gonna be the most original world building that you've ever read. It's not any of those things. But in my opinion, they are a damn good time. I have so much fun reading the sort of truth books. Are they perfect? No, but I would quote Patrick Rathaus as I have many times before. Anyone can love a thing because that's as easy as putting a penny in your pocket but to love something despite. To know the flaws and love them too, that is rare and pure and perfect. That is how I feel about the sort of truth books. They have many flaws, many of which I have outlined in this video. I still have a great time reading the books and I don't have to think they're perfect to enjoy the hell out of them and to recommend them. So, if you hate them, I'm unsurprised because it seems that a lot of people hate them and you know, you do you. If you don't think they're fun, if you don't have a good time, if you think they're dumb and annoying and you're irritated reading them, like I'm in there. Lord knows I have rants on my channel because I'm irritated by books. If they're not your thing, they're not your thing. But if you've never tried them, you might be your thing. You might be surprised. So, give them a go before you judge them too harshly. If you've given them a go and you've judged them harshly, you know, that's your right. Anyway, that's all I have to say, I think. Let me know in the comments down below how you feel about the sort of truth books. If you have read them, if I've inspired you to potentially give them a go, if you hated and despised them and just like wanted to see how on earth somebody could possibly like them, then I hope this was in some way informative. Whatever you wanna let me know, I post videos on Saturdays, other random times as well, but definitely Saturdays, so like and subscribe, join my Patreon if you feel so inclined and I'll see you when I see you.