Legend of the Seeker vs. the Sword of Truth novels

Fans of the Sword of Truth novels tend to have strong opinions about the way Terry Goodkind’s stories have been translated to the screen in Legend of the Seeker. Since I was introduced to the books through the TV series, I tend to be less sensitive to the liberties taken with characters and events from the novels. Still, I thought it would make for an interesting discussion to examine some of the differences between the books and the show, and to discuss whether the changes have been for the better or the worse.

Since I can’t possibly cover all topics and points of view, I hope that you’ll participate in the discussion by sharing your thoughts in the comments. Also, keep in mind that I’ve only read Wizard’s First Rule and Stone of Tears (I’m just starting Blood of the Fold). Feel free to share your knowledge.

Richard Cypher – Let’s start with the Seeker. For me, the Richard in the TV series seems very young, innocent, chivalrous, and passionate for justice. In the books, although Richard is gentle inside, one of his defining characteristics is rage — the Sword of Truth’s magic constantly draws fury out of him. This was touched on in the Season 2 episode, “Fury,” but in general, TV Richard doesn’t often show that anger. Book Richard also constantly threatens to kill people, male and female alike, and he’s much more utilitarian; in other words, he will kill someone or let someone die if he thinks it’s for the greater good. Still, both Richards seem to have a strong sense of justice and compassion, which is why I’m quite satisfied with Craig Horner‘s portrayal of the character (not to mention the fact that Horner is eye candy for us female fans).

Darken Rahl – Speaking of eye candy … Craig Parker may look nothing like Darken Rahl (who is supposed to have blond hair, blue eyes, and perfect features), but Parker does have a soft-spoken kind of oily charm that is just perfect for the role. The show’s creators have taken liberties to adapt the character to the screen — instead of deceptive white robes, TV Rahl wears typical villain red. Book Rahl’s odd habits include licking his fingertips, and his lower body is disfigured by burn scars. These details have been left out of the TV show, which makes TV Rahl less creepy and pitiable (we need to fear Rahl, not pity him). And yet, TV Rahl still comes off as relatively tame compared to Book Rahl. After his death, he becomes the spokesperson for the Keeper, and he doesn’t really do much beside talk in a contemptuous voice. He seems impotent. In contrast, Book Rahl scares the hell out of Richard and Kahlan during their little voodoo night at the Mud People’s village. Although I like Parker’s Rahl, I wish we could see him do more evil things … torture people, kill puppies, whatever — he needs to be more evil and more sinister. I was also disappointed that Rahl turned out to be Richard’s brother in the TV show (as opposed to his father in the books). There is a completely different dynamic to Rahl’s interactions with Richard, based on whether they are brothers or father and son. As brothers, they are rivals. As father and son, there is a more interesting, twisted kind of bond between them.

Kahlan Amnell - Bridget Regan captures certain characteristics of Kahlan perfectly: her “special smile,” for example. I think that physically she is perfect for the part. In terms of changes to the character, I think TV Kahlan seems emotionally softer and physically stronger, while Book Kahlan is just the opposite — emotionally stronger and physically weaker. Book Kahlan is always on the verge of being raped (that’s no exaggeration). In contrast, TV Kahlan kicks butt every week. At the same time, Book Kahlan has the emotional strength to send Richard away from her, to rule the Midlands and lead an army to war, even to order the deaths of (possibly innocent) people in order to serve a larger purpose (in Stone of Tears, she does this more than once). TV Kahlan won’t leave Richard’s side, even though her role as the Mother Confessor theoretically involves ruling the Midlands. She seems very emotionally dependent on him, and like TV Richard, her gentleness and sense of justice would never allow her to kill for utilitarian purposes the way that Book Kahlan does. To be completely honest, I like TV Kahlan much better than Book Kahlan.

Mord-Sith - While reading Wizard’s First Rule, I felt a little grossed out, like I had accidentally peeked into Terry Goodkind’s private fantasy life and his preoccupation with bondage and rape. But obviously fans find something about the Mord-Sith incredibly intriguing. Seeker has done a great job with the Mord-Sith in general — the red leather looks great, and the actresses they cast have been spot on. Denna, despite being blond instead of auburn, was played beautifully by Jessica Marais (I just wish that the writers had made the Season 1 episode “Denna” a two-parter instead of trying to squeeze such a significant part of Richard’s story into one hour). I feel that the Mord-Sith in the book are far more brutal (I would say impossibly brutal) than the Mord-Sith in the show, but I guess there’s only so much you want to show on screen. I know from watching Spartacus: Blood and Sand that the Seeker team is more than capable of showing the most graphic violence and sex, and I’m glad that they’ve kept Seeker PG-13. But back to the Mord-Sith. The show has had to interpret the way the Mord-Sith’s magic/abilities work. For example, the breath of life appears to be a magical ability, instead of a fancy way of saying CPR. I think these decisions have been good for the show. Visually, on a fantasy show I’d rather see a wisp of magical breath than a woman splitting her leather pants while trying to perform CPR.

Sisters of the Light - Where to begin? The Sisters have probably disappointed many fans of the books. Although I like the TV version of Sister Verna (she’s much more mellow than Book Verna), I don’t like the way the show reduced the Sisters to a stereotypical order of chanting women in matching robes. The Sisters in the book don’t wear matching robes, which is why Sister Nicci’s choice to wear black would not seem so remarkable. On the show, since all the Sisters wear matching robes, Nicci also had to (and that bugged some fans). There was such an uproar over Jolene Blalock playing Nicci, that I think she should have simply portrayed the character who really tried to steal Richard’s Han — Sister Liliana. I like the decision to leave out extraneous characters, like the obnoxious Pasha, and to focus on a few like Verna and Nicci, but I think it would have been okay to use Liliana in “Dark” and “Perdition,” and to save Nicci for later. As I said, the Sisters were reduced to a stereotype in the show — down to the unlikable Prelate. In contrast, I think the Prelate in the books is quite a likable, interesting character.

Oh my, there is so much to discuss and so little space. I haven’t even touched on plot points and all kinds of things. If I’ve neglected to mention something you are interested in (the Stone of Tears, the Boxes of Orden, the Underworld, characters, whatever), jump right in and talk about it in the comments.

Clacked by Ruby T.
on Mar 07, 2010 @ 12:00 EST5EDT