Home
The Brilliance of Pillars of Creation: SPOILERS
I would like to bring people’s attention to what I believe is a somewhat underrated novel.
Pillars of Creation is often regarded as the least favourite among the other novels and some people (not necessarily just on this board but the web at large) often attack this book and Terry’s decision to write it without the series main characters.
This post is not a post to defend Terry’s choice to write this book the way he did, but more to point out to some people (some of you may have already come to the same conclusions I have) what I think some of Terry’s reasons were for writing this book this way. I’m sure Terry had many reasons and not just this one but hopefully you’ll get the idea.
Firstly, let’s look at what came before Pillars of Creation. Probably Terry’s strongest novel to date is Faith of the Fallen. It is indeed my favourite book and usually ranks first or second (behind WFR) in internet polls on numerous websites around the place. It is regarded as his most controversial and at the same time, his most uplifting book to date.
In its pages comes a very powerful message, yet at the same time, a very simple one: “Your life is yours alone. Rise up and live it.”
Who can forget the feeling you had when you read those words for the first time? Who can forget the feeling you had when you read about Nicci’s acceptance of her actions in the shadow of Richards statue?
I dare say, not a one.
Personally, for me, this was Terry’s most powerful book. It showed me what I already knew but at the same time showed it to me in a way that was like lifting a blindfold off my eyes.
It showed me that there are true hero’s out there that can act responsibly and can take responsibility for those actions. It showed me the value of life and freedom.
So, having written such a powerful book with such a powerful message, why would Terry write his next book, Pillars of Creation without the main characters? Why does he put the reader on the back foot at the very out set when the reader is expecting so much after the accomplishment of Faith of the Fallen?
The answer: it is for the very reason that he is writing Pillars of Creation that he wrote it the way he did.
I know that sounds kind of weird but hear me out.
Pillars of Creation is about, among so many other things, prejudices. It is living in the future, not the past.
Think about it. What happened in Pillars of Creation? Jennsen is against Richard Rahl from the very beginning of the book because of what she knows came before.
By not allowing herself to take things as they are currently, but instead of living in the past, she can’t see Richard for who he really is. And that my dear readers, is what I see is a common trap with people judging Pillars of Creation.
People read Pillars of Creation by focusing on what has come before it: Faith of the Fallen. And while it is important to be extremely mindful of the past, as is pointed out in Pillars of Creation, you must also take note of the present.
You see, I believe that because Terry was writing about prejudices and about living in the future and not the past is what led Terry to write the book this way.
I’m sure many readers judged Jennsen and her story too harshly because of their own prejudices based on the previous book and based on what they expected.
I truly think that this was a brilliant method of writing. Terry has used the readers own prejudices to prove his point. I just hope, and it is my aim with this post to aid in this, that readers acknowledge this and look at Pillars of Creation in a new light.
I would like to bring people’s attention to what I believe is a somewhat underrated novel.
Pillars of Creation is often regarded as the least favourite among the other novels and some people (not necessarily just on this board but the web at large) often attack this book and Terry’s decision to write it without the series main characters.
This post is not a post to defend Terry’s choice to write this book the way he did, but more to point out to some people (some of you may have already come to the same conclusions I have) what I think some of Terry’s reasons were for writing this book this way. I’m sure Terry had many reasons and not just this one but hopefully you’ll get the idea.
Firstly, let’s look at what came before Pillars of Creation. Probably Terry’s strongest novel to date is Faith of the Fallen. It is indeed my favourite book and usually ranks first or second (behind WFR) in internet polls on numerous websites around the place. It is regarded as his most controversial and at the same time, his most uplifting book to date.
In its pages comes a very powerful message, yet at the same time, a very simple one: “Your life is yours alone. Rise up and live it.”
Who can forget the feeling you had when you read those words for the first time? Who can forget the feeling you had when you read about Nicci’s acceptance of her actions in the shadow of Richards statue?
I dare say, not a one.
Personally, for me, this was Terry’s most powerful book. It showed me what I already knew but at the same time showed it to me in a way that was like lifting a blindfold off my eyes.
It showed me that there are true hero’s out there that can act responsibly and can take responsibility for those actions. It showed me the value of life and freedom.
So, having written such a powerful book with such a powerful message, why would Terry write his next book, Pillars of Creation without the main characters? Why does he put the reader on the back foot at the very out set when the reader is expecting so much after the accomplishment of Faith of the Fallen?
The answer: it is for the very reason that he is writing Pillars of Creation that he wrote it the way he did.
I know that sounds kind of weird but hear me out.
Pillars of Creation is about, among so many other things, prejudices. It is living in the future, not the past.
Think about it. What happened in Pillars of Creation? Jennsen is against Richard Rahl from the very beginning of the book because of what she knows came before.
By not allowing herself to take things as they are currently, but instead of living in the past, she can’t see Richard for who he really is. And that my dear readers, is what I see is a common trap with people judging Pillars of Creation.
People read Pillars of Creation by focusing on what has come before it: Faith of the Fallen. And while it is important to be extremely mindful of the past, as is pointed out in Pillars of Creation, you must also take note of the present.
You see, I believe that because Terry was writing about prejudices and about living in the future and not the past is what led Terry to write the book this way.
I’m sure many readers judged Jennsen and her story too harshly because of their own prejudices based on the previous book and based on what they expected.
I truly think that this was a brilliant method of writing. Terry has used the readers own prejudices to prove his point. I just hope, and it is my aim with this post to aid in this, that readers acknowledge this and look at Pillars of Creation in a new light.
