406 replies to this topic

[Jaxom 1974]

Kheldar, on Jun 24 2008, 16.26, said:

The criticisms of the philosophy are perfectly valid.  The subjective opinion aspect only comes into play with regards to how it affects the readability of the books.  Some people get hung up on their disagreements with the philosophy and can't enjoy the books.  That's where it's a matter of personal opinion.

It has been noted, through this thread and various other places, that more than a lot of people have issues with the prose and writing, as well as characterization and they the books down (okay, some have thrown) after the first one.  "Not for them", you say and we all agree.  Then there are those of us who have gotten at least half way through the books, DESPITE the issues with basic writing skills and gave it a chance, because we enjoyed it on some basic level initially so we had hope.  Then the philosophy came to the fore and suddenly it was impossible to reconcile the bad writing with the clumsy attempts to tell us how we should be living.  Then there are those who actually finished the series, and they report it just spirals downward from the middle.  Now, throughout this thread we've all attempted to convey this in (mostly) coherent fashion and yet it seems that it all boils down to "a matter of personal opinion".

[Kheldar]

El Jax Campeador, on Jun 25 2008, 10.07, said:

It has been noted, through this thread and various other places, that more than a lot of people have issues with the prose and writing, as well as characterization and they the books down (okay, some have thrown) after the first one.  "Not for them", you say and we all agree.  Then there are those of us who have gotten at least half way through the books, DESPITE the issues with basic writing skills and gave it a chance, because we enjoyed it on some basic level initially so we had hope.  Then the philosophy came to the fore and suddenly it was impossible to reconcile the bad writing with the clumsy attempts to tell us how we should be living.  Then there are those who actually finished the series, and they report it just spirals downward from the middle.  Now, throughout this thread we've all attempted to convey this in (mostly) coherent fashion and yet it seems that it all boils down to "a matter of personal opinion".

A good summation.

Is there a problem with this?  Do you disagree that it's a matter of personal opinion?  If so, on what grounds?  What is it, if not personal opinion?

[Jaxom 1974]

Kheldar, on Jun 25 2008, 09.24, said:

A good summation.

Is there a problem with this?  Do you disagree that it's a matter of personal opinion?  If so, on what grounds?  What is it, if not personal opinion?

No problems.  Makes you wonder what the point of ever having a discussion about something though?

[Kheldar]

El Jax Campeador, on Jun 25 2008, 10.38, said:

No problems.  Makes you wonder what the point of ever having a discussion about something though?

There's still an exchange of ideas.  I've had the opportunity here to better learn why some people dislike TG's books, and it's helped me.

Some people have issues with things like writing style, character development (or lack thereof), the hero always being right, etc., that are rooted not in opposition to the philosophy, but in simple dislike for how the stories are written.  In my opinion, it's not bad enough (although it is bad at times) to make me not want to read the stories (Pillars of Creation tested me sorely, since Jennsen was such a ditz.  Naked Empire was tough to swallow given the unrealistic transformation of Bandakarians from "Nonviolence Always" to "Violence can be justified, and we'll act in violent ways" based on a couple of speeches.)

Then there are people who vehemently oppose the Objectivist message as portrayed in the books, who can't enjoy the stories simply because they're so rooted in Objectivism.  I oppose certain aspects of Objectivism, but that opposition hasn't interfered with my enjoyment to any significant degree.

After that, there are people who are up in arms about the arrogant things TG has said in interviews.  If I cared what authors say, or what they intend to say through their stories, I'd probably be bothered by some of what he has said.  But I don't, so I'm not.

Those are "primary motivators".  Someone who is primarily unhappy with the writing may also dislike Objectivism and TG's arrogance...but the primary factor is the bad writing (which leads them to wonder why TG is so arrogant ;)).  Or another person is pissed at TG for statements made in an interview, and that dislike drives them to pick apart minute details in the stories, looking for flaws.  Yet another person is opposed to Objectivism, writes all Objectivists off as arrogant, and hates the broad writing style that makes the so-called "Rational" actions of the characters to be always right.  (These are meant to be examples, not evaluations of anyone here.)  All are valid reasons for not liking a book.

Prior to this discussion, I didn't have the same understanding as I do now.

There are other purposes as well.

[Arthmail]

I....need....to.....punch....that smarmy......avatar.....in the face. Dammit.

HE WON'T STOP LOOKING AT ME!

[The Pita]

Don't worry Arthmail, you're not paranoid.
He's following you.

[Rakehell]

OK addicted, I'll try and respond in the spirit your original post was intended even though this has veered quite far away from your initial comments.

I really, really don't understand the love and adoration some people have for TG's books.  To me, it's like someone standing in front of a buffet and gorging themselves on macaroni and cheese when there's filet mignon sitting right next to it.  It could be the person just likes macaroni and cheese a whole lot and is perfectly content with that, that's fine, but it's an entirely alien way of thinking to me.  And the best way to try and understand is to ask questions, so I will.

First though, let's see if I can get some perspective on the situation.  You said you're new to fantasy, was SoT the first epic fantasy you'd read?

You listed a few other authors whose work you have read, I'm going to use Steve Brust for these questions since he's the one I'm most readily familiar with.

Which Brust books have you read?

Would you consider him to be a better or worse author than Goodkind?

What about Brust's writing do you find to be better or worse than Goodkind?

What are the notable differences you see between their writing styles?

I've read damn near everything Brust has had published (excepting a few stories that were written for convention chapbooks) and I find even his earliest works to display more refinement, more skill and more polish than even Goodkind's most recent stuff.  Yes, I've read most of SoT as well, although I simply could not force my way through more than about 1/3 of Confessor before I had to give up.  My major distaste for him arose mainly from reading Faith of the Fallen and well, just from reading it.  I am familiar with Objectivism, I've read The Fountainhed and got about 10-15 pages in to the big John Galt speech in Atlas Shrugged before I got sick of it.

[Arthmail]

PitaCake, on Jun 25 2008, 13.39, said:

Don't worry Arthmail, you're not paranoid.
He's following you.

I knew it! First Bowie/Myshkin wants to be me, then this smarmy SOB is following me. Look at the little smug look on his face!


Gah!

[Myshkin]

Alright Kheldar, I give up.  You can continue to call me a liar, and you can continue to fail to provide examples.

[beniowa]

Kheldar, on Jun 25 2008, 08.17, said:

Boy, did you miss the point of that one.  It wasn't about Richard, or what was done to him or Violet.  It wasn't an attempt to equate Violet to a real world person.  It was a potential example of when harming a "child" could be justified (no matter how difficult).  You seemed to be operating under the misconception that there can be no justification for harming a child (based on your distillation of what happened).

Set aside Goodkind for a moment.  Do you think there's ever a time when kicking a "child" in the face could be justified?

NO.  

Myshkin didn't miss the point.  Misconception?  There is no misconception because striking a child in anger is never right regardless of the circumstances.  To do so lwould justify the worst kinds of child abuse.  No.

[Werthead]

Arthmail, on Jun 25 2008, 23.24, said:

I knew it! First Bowie/Myshkin wants to be me, then this smarmy SOB is following me. Look at the little smug look on his face!


Gah!

Does seeing him in actionhelp?

[Derfel Cadarn]

Werthead, on Jun 25 2008, 20.27, said:

Does seeing him in actionhelp?

"It's Ireland's biggest lingerie section, I understand.  I read that ... somewhere."

"We've passed these bra's before."

Oh and the Eurovision entry http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related   That money was just resting in my account before I moved it on!

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related  Racist Father Ted

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related  and    http://www.youtube.c...feature=related    Kicking Bishop Brennan up the arse!

Edited by Derfel Cadarn, 25 June 2008 - 08:05 PM.

[addicted]

Rakehell, on Jun 25 2008, 15.12, said:

OK addicted, I'll try and respond in the spirit your original post was intended even though this has veered quite far away from your initial comments.

Thank you

Quote

I really, really don't understand the love and adoration some people have for TG's books.  To me, it's like someone standing in front of a buffet and gorging themselves on macaroni and cheese when there's filet mignon sitting right next to it.  It could be the person just likes macaroni and cheese a whole lot and is perfectly content with that, that's fine, but it's an entirely alien way of thinking to me.  And the best way to try and understand is to ask questions, so I will.

Nice analogy :P I always have been fond of mac & cheese :D

Quote

First though, let's see if I can get some perspective on the situation.  You said you're new to fantasy, was SoT the first epic fantasy you'd read?

Yes, I had tried others (can't remember the author and lost interest during 2nd or 3rd. It was a series on Merlin "walking the earth" So it was the first I had ever been interested in enough to stick w/ it. I previously (many yrs ago) read more mystery/thriller; examples include Robert Ludlum,  Sydney Sheldon, John Grisham, etc. I have Clive Cussler and Nelson Demille on my pending list though I may have previously read one or two of them.

Quote

You listed a few other authors whose work you have read, I'm going to use Steve Brust for these questions since he's the one I'm most readily familiar with.

Which Brust books have you read?

Agyar, Cowboy Feng's Spacebar and Grille, part way thru Vlad Taltos series. I think Phoenix is either where I stopped or where I need to continue.

Quote

Would you consider him to be a better or worse author than Goodkind?

It is hard for me to compare, they are "different" types of books IMHO

Quote

What about Brust's writing do you find to be better or worse than Goodkind?

It's been a while since I read the series one, again, I don't know if I would say one is better than the other, they are different styles. I can tell you this, the characters did not resonate with me as much w/in Brust as they did w/ Goodkind, and I stopped in the middle of the series due partially to availability, but if I was part way w/in SOT I would have found them regardless. So if I had to say better or worse, I would choose Goodkind because he had me wanting more and I *had* to finish the series. Brust is still on my shelf, pending completion, at this rate I will have to re-read the ones previously read.

Quote

What are the notable differences you see between their writing styles?

The philosophy. Also one is first person narrative and the other is third person. Vlad is almost envious, though not, of the lifestyle, Richard was thrust into it with little to no options. Vlad has preconceived notions, Richard doesn't

Quote

I've read damn near everything Brust has had published (excepting a few stories that were written for convention chapbooks) and I find even his earliest works to display more refinement, more skill and more polish than even Goodkind's most recent stuff.  Yes, I've read most of SoT as well, although I simply could not force my way through more than about 1/3 of Confessor before I had to give up.  My major distaste for him arose mainly from reading Faith of the Fallen and well, just from reading it.  I am familiar with Objectivism, I've read The Fountainhed and got about 10-15 pages in to the big John Galt speech in Atlas Shrugged before I got sick of it.

All in all, Confessor was not my favorite either. It did feel rushed to me. There were some very satisfying things, and he wrapped up a good deal (but left no juicy things for me to debate about for the next yr :P ) but overall, it seemed rushed.

I laughed at the speech in AS...I readall of it, and thought.."damn and they think TG is long winded!" :P

I truly can see why TG is not for everyone. This thread has shed some further light on that assessment. It comes down to ideals and opinion IMHO. But hey to each his own is the way to look at it. If it was just a simple matter of that we would not be here debating/discussing the finer details. This exchange has provided both sides (I hope) an alternate perspective beyond our norm.

~A

[Aemon Stark]

Kheldar, on Jun 25 2008, 09.17, said:

Boy, did you miss the point of that one.  It wasn't about Richard, or what was done to him or Violet.  It wasn't an attempt to equate Violet to a real world person.  It was a potential example of when harming a "child" could be justified (no matter how difficult).  You seemed to be operating under the misconception that there can be no justification for harming a child (based on your distillation of what happened).

Set aside Goodkind for a moment.  Do you think there's ever a time when kicking a "child" in the face could be justified?

I'll respond to this too (since I had a long past which was tragically lost earlier).

NO.

Emphatically no, particularly when the particular assault shatters the child's jaw and severs her tongue. I'll note your attempt to redefine Violet as a-child-that-is-not-a-child. It goes with the chicken theme, I guess. ASOIAF has its fair share of nasty kids - Joffrey Baratheon, to say the least, and whatever can be said of Arya, she's certainly going down a violent path. Of course, in Westeros, Richard Rahl would fit in well with the likes of Gregor Clegane. No doubt he'd also appreciate the Dothraki treatment of the pacifistic Lhazareen.

Quote

If so, then you're statement "The problem being that what Richard would do might well be to kick a child in the face..." isn't necessarily a problem.

I'd offer that there is no circumstance in which it is justified to viciously assault a child who is, at most, uttering rather empty verbal threats. Perhaps a good slap across the cheek, but permanent maiming is absolutely unjustified and evil.

Quote

Again, you're missing the point.  It's not about a parallel between characters in the book and the real world, it's about justifying actions that could (and do) harm innocents.

Like slaughtering unarmed civilians who, incidentally, were not posing any threat to the erstwhile protagonist?

Anyway, having visited TG.net a bit today and yesterday, I am rather dismayed by the portrayal by some of this board as some sort of nest of "vitriol" against SoT. Disdain or disrespect, perhaps, but the Great Goodkind threads of the Literature Forum are all in fun. That SoT is such an easy target for people who care about things like character and quality writing and not at all for marginal ideological projects is not our fault.

(And concerning objectivism, I think this review is well worth reading.)

[Kheldar]

Myshkin, on Jun 25 2008, 19.05, said:

Alright Kheldar, I give up.  You can continue to call me a liar, and you can continue to fail to provide examples.

Ok.

You're a liar.  I won't provide proof, because I refuse to make it a board war.

Have fun with your victim status, and feel free to consider me a bully who is a big meanie.

Now, do you want to discuss the content of the book, or try and discredit me some more and win sympathy points.

[DanteGabriel]

So I read the GRRM thread at TG.net.  Out of curiosity.  Fear not, I won't try trolling there.  Just have to say, Mystar does TG a disservice with the puerile rants he engages in, no matter how much he disagrees with or dislikes what someone else is saying, no matter how great a friend he feels he is to TG.  Not one mod on this site would sink to the level that Mystar sank to in that thread.

ETA: Pita didn't exactly cover himself in glory in his Martin advocacy either.  Were I not trying to be delicate, I would probably indulge in some Full Metal Jacket style metaphor-coining about what reading that thread was like, but I will stop there.

Edited by DanteGabriel, 25 June 2008 - 10:27 PM.

[Lightsnake]

Arthmail, on Jun 24 2008, 14.14, said:

Kheldar, you seem like such a nice guy.

But your avatar has such a smarmy look. Like Jeff Probst, host of Survivor.

Is it wrong to want to punch your avatar in the mouth?

Arth...I'm just jumping into this now...I'm on your side here...and hell, I like you...

But if you DARE speak ill of Father Ted in my presence, there's gonna be some jaw kicking in store...

[Kheldar]

beniowa, on Jun 25 2008, 19.46, said:

NO.

Such a blanket statement must be false.  There is never an instance when one should harm a child?  Ever?

beniowa, on Jun 25 2008, 19.46, said:

Myshkin didn't miss the point.  Misconception?  There is no misconception because striking a child in anger is never right regardless of the circumstances.  To do so lwould justify the worst kinds of child abuse.  No.

I wasn't asking about striking a child in anger.  I wasn't asking about the particular situation with Richard and Violet.  I asked if it would ever be right to kick a child in the face.

Would you like a real world example?  This has nothing to do with Violet, it isn't analogous with what happened in the books, but it helps make the point regarding there being times when such an extreme action is necessary.

I've been given permission to share this with you.  I don't have permission to disclose who shared it with me....it's not me, but it's someone I know and trust.  This is not a BS story.

A Friend said:

My father was in the vietnam war. He had two tours of duty's over there. He's seen a lot of bad things.

He's done a lot of bad, but unfortunately necessary things.

One of those things happened one night when he was doing the security for the base they were staying in at the time.

Dad was a good shot. He had his snipers badge and knew how to handle a weapon pretty well.

While he was patrolling he saw someone walk towards the base. He brought his weapon up, and tracked them while trying to get word on the radio.

Dad says everything happened so fast. So very fast.

The person comeing towards them got closer and closer, and as they got closer Dad realised that they were strapped with explosives.

This of course made him extremely nervous and he knew that it was up to him. As he was tracking them with his weapon, he realised that it was a child. He said they couldn't have been much older then ten.

He yelled for them to stop, but they kept coming. He kept yelling for them to stop. He was screaming at them.

The boy was getting closer. and closer. Then, he broke into a run, heading for the nearest building.

Dad said that the second he broke into a run convinced him that he wasn't going to stop. He waited about two seconds and then shot.

As the boy was strapped with explosives all across his torso, and the boy was running, the only place Dad could be sure of hitting him was in the head. As you run, the head and torso stay still while the arms and legs are moving.

So thats what Dad did, he shot a ten year old boy in the head. He did so because he feared what would have happened if the boy got to one of the buildings.

Was it wrong for this man to shoot a ten year old boy in the head?

Can you honestly make a blanket statement that there could never be an instance when such is necessary?  This is the type of thing that made me respond to Myshkin's post the way I did.  There can be times when such a repugnant action is the right course, as awful as it is.

[Kheldar]

Aemon Stark, on Jun 25 2008, 21.35, said:

I'll respond to this too (since I had a long past which was tragically lost earlier).

NO.

Emphatically no, particularly when the particular assault shatters the child's jaw and severs her tongue.

As I said in my previous post, I wasn't talking about Violet.

Myshkin made a statement that implied that kicking a child in the face is always wrong.  Read the story above, and tell me it's not worse than a kick.  Then tell me I'm wrong to point it out...sometimes a repulsive act is the only course available, and the only correct course of action.

This does not apply to the Violet issue...this is just in regards to Myshkin's implication that somebody doing what Richard would do, kicking a child in the face, is guaranteed to be wrong.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 25 2008, 21.35, said:

I'd offer that there is no circumstance in which it is justified to viciously assault a child who is, at most, uttering rather empty verbal threats. Perhaps a good slap across the cheek, but permanent maiming is absolutely unjustified and evil.

Strangely enough, in a world with magic, she wasn't permanently maimed.

And don't make it out that the child was innocent.  We try children as adults here in the US, if the case is grave enough.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 25 2008, 21.35, said:

Like slaughtering unarmed civilians who, incidentally, were not posing any threat to the erstwhile protagonist?

Which unarmed civilians are you referring to?  The ones in Bandakar?  Or the ones in the Old World.

In Bandakar, the unarmed civilians were trying to prevent the ouster of a tyrant who was bent on taking over the world.

The ones in the Old World were not ordered to be slaughtered. I grabbed my copy today, just to check...Richard orders the troops to destroy anything useful to the Imperial Order.  Innocents were to be spared.  He acknowledged that innocents would be harmed by the destruction of things in the Old World.  In fact, after giving all of the orders, Richard spend a bit of time in introspection, unhappy with the damage that will be caused but resigned to carry it out.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 25 2008, 21.35, said:

Anyway, having visited TG.net a bit today and yesterday, I am rather dismayed by the portrayal by some of this board as some sort of nest of "vitriol" against SoT. Disdain or disrespect, perhaps, but the Great Goodkind threads of the Literature Forum are all in fun. That SoT is such an easy target for people who care about things like character and quality writing and not at all for marginal ideological projects is not our fault.

I disagree.  It's not "all in fun".  Something that is meant "all in fun" is when I pick on mystar's age, or his lack of typing skills.  He knows it's gentle joshing, and not meant with any sense of malice.  The Goodkind threads here are fun for the participants, but they are not meant "all in fun".  They're an outlet for the disdain/hatred/whatever.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 25 2008, 21.35, said:

(And concerning objectivism, I think this review is well worth reading.)

I'll check it out.  I need to hit the sack...I've gotta be up in 4 hours.

G'night.

[Caligula_K]

Kheldar, on Jun 25 2008, 23.33, said:

Such a blanket statement must be false.  There is never an instance when one should harm a child?  Ever?


I wasn't asking about striking a child in anger.  I wasn't asking about the particular situation with Richard and Violet.  I asked if it would ever be right to kick a child in the face.

Would you like a real world example?  This has nothing to do with Violet, it isn't analogous with what happened in the books, but it helps make the point regarding there being times when such an extreme action is necessary.

I've been given permission to share this with you.  I don't have permission to disclose who shared it with me....it's not me, but it's someone I know and trust.  This is not a BS story.


Was it wrong for this man to shoot a ten year old boy in the head?

Can you honestly make a blanket statement that there could never be an instance when such is necessary?  This is the type of thing that made me respond to Myshkin's post the way I did.  There can be times when such a repugnant action is the right course, as awful as it is.

Granting that there are exceptions to the moral rule that child abuse (and particularly excessive child abuse is wrong), generally in situations, as in the example you posted, where the child is actively threatening the lives of others. I still fail to see how that situation applies to Richard and Violet. Violet had done some bad things, but was no longer a threat. She taunted Richard, as many eight and nine year olds might. He kicked her in the jaw. So I really can't see how this SOT example is analogous to the example you posted- in the example, the soldier essentially had no choice- either he shot the kid in the head (and I'll take it that its true that there were no other ways of stopping him) or people died. Richard had plenty of choice; nobody was in danger of any kind. Which means that kicking Violet is a petty, vengeful action that can't be justified, especially since, as Aemon wrote, Richard permanently maimed her.