406 replies to this topic

[Kheldar]

DanteGabriel, on Jun 25 2008, 23.25, said:

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.

I can't speak to that...I haven't read the thread in question (if I have, it's been quite a while), and I don't know the mods on this site.

I'm not going to answer for mystar's actions.  I will say that some posts that have been cited by various people here as containing anger/ranting have been written without anger, but instead while laughing.

DanteGabriel, on Jun 25 2008, 23.25, said:

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.

Heh. The internet seems to bring out the worst in some people.

Ok, now I'm really going to bed.

G'night.

[Myshkin]

Kheldar, on Jun 25 2008, 20.24, said:

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.

And you are a poor debater, with your circular reasoning, your propensity to use differing standpoints depending on what's being argued, and your attempts to discredit your opponents rather than their points.

You have called me a liar Kheldar, and yet you refuse to show any evidence to back up your accusation.  That marks you as a liar, and if you think anybody is going to be fooled by your lame excuses you are wrong.

  

Kheldar, on Jun 25 2008, 20.24, said:

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

You see what you did here?  You insulted me and then claimed that all you wanted to do was talk about the books.  If all you want to do is talk about the books why insult me in the first place?  No, it seems to me that you were no longer able to effectivly argue your points and so instead decided on the "Myshkin is a liar" tactic.  If you want to talk about the book, then do it.  But if you're going to lace your posts with insults to me then I will answer back in kind.

[Kheldar]

Brahm_K, on Jun 25 2008, 23.47, said:

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.

Read this, from the post you quoted:

me said:

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.
<snip>
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.

[Myshkin]

Kheldar said:

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.

If this story has nothing whatsoever to do with Goodkind's books then what is the purpose of posting it in this thread?  It seems to me that you tried to make a point, got called out for using a poor analogy, and so tried to shift your position and claim you were trying to make a different point.

[Caligula_K]

Kheldar, on Jun 25 2008, 23.59, said:

Read this, from the post you quoted:

My apologies. But if you agree, then whats the point of discussing it in this context?

Anyway, I've just been reading this thread over, and I'd like to say that you and addicted have acted with a lot of restraint in this thread, especially since there have been some admittedly kind of dickish posts directed towards your way. I too have joined in the Goodkind threads, but I do think we can be assholes at points, and if you enjoy the books, all power to you. But I do think that you and Myshkin were having an interesting conversation- I don't think he's lying. If you disagree with his opinion, then please do provide examples to show why you think he's taking things out of context- but simply calling him a liar doesn't do your argument any favours.

[Aemon Stark]

Kheldar, on Jun 25 2008, 23.47, said:

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

Then why the frak is your question relevant?

Quote

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.

A regretful act in self-defence is still an act of self-defence. It is not strictly relevant whether the suicide bomber in question was a child or an adult or a discord-creating lemming.

Quote

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

Ahhh, so in Tairy's world of arbitrary magic and reset buttons, Richard's actions are less objectionable because they can be reversed. How convenient - tell me, was Richard aware of this when he was kicking in her jaw with enough force to sever her tongue?

Quote

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.

And what was Violet's crime that merited Richard's exaction of punishment? And who made him judge, jury, and jaw-kicker? Let's even ignore Violet's age - is it right for someone - anyone - to kick in another person's jaw because said person was making them angry?

Quote

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.

And being unarmed, how would this have been effected? How does one prevent the ouster of a tyrant (by whose definition?) with no force of arms?

Quote

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.

It relates to the other example as well, but this reminds me very much of the portrayal of Shi Huang Di in The Emperor and the Assassin. He too struggles with the horrible acts that he believes are necessary to unify China, but in the end he orders whole cities put to the sword, and even orders the execution of children lest they grow up to take revenge. Initially, his lover Lady Zhao is captivated by his dream of unity and an end to the era of warring states. As the extent of his atrocities became clear, she turns against him and begins plotting his assassination.

You see, that's how fully psychologically realised characters react to horrible events. Richard may be the hero, but are his opponents or critics (to the extent they exist) ever allowed to be in the right?

Quote

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.

Malice? That would be "the intention or desire to do evil or cause injury to another person; active ill will or hatred". You seem to be under the mistaken impression that we are a bunch of humourless morons filled with "vitriol" and "hatred" - why, the very notion that we would enjoy making fun of bad prose! We're all just haterz!!

I don't post much in these threats, but I quite enjoy reading them. But if it weren't for the existence of SoT, we would surely be the poorer for it - what's all the more amusing is the strained set of arguments and rationalizations you're putting forward to defend the indefensible.

We claim the jaw-kicking incident is representative of dodgy characterization (to say nothing of the moral compass in the series ostensible hero). You come back that the specific isn't relevant, since the act can be justified if you completely strip away the context and every other feature of the scenario apart from the fact that it involves hurting a child. And, really, it's okay, because in a world of arbitrary magic, there are no real lasting consequences to anything. It's even a-ok to slaughter pacifists if they're being inconvenient to your war-mongering goals. Why, with that nuanced understanding of defence and military policy, it's a wonder that the White House and Department of Defence don't go recruiting on TG.net, what with your elevated philosophical appreciation for Hard Choices Made in War as they relate to Important Human Themes.

That's not to say I hold any "malice" much less "hatred" to Goodkind fans. But you guys sure are setting yourselves up for a good skewering on our ever-diverse Westerosi board.

(I might also add that in perusing the TG.net "community", I didn't find anything like our book forums here. There are uncountable major controversies in ASOIAF, and debating them is a major past-time. Does R+L=J? Can Jaime truly be redeemed? Is Tyrion a likeable character? Is Arya a psychopath, and, if so, do we still like her? Was Ned Stark a fool? Does Catelyn deserve most of the hate she gets? And Sansa? Is Jon does a Mary Sue? Is Dany just a megalomaniac with dragons? And it goes on. And on and on.

ASOIAF is put under a microscope here... the only times things ever seem to get particularly "controversial" are in the "When will ADWD be released?" threads and, of course, in one of many political or moral/ethical debates occuring in Gen Chatter. I love this board and it's free-wheeling nature, and even though I don't post my own original topics as often as I should, I'm quite happy to use it as my primary procrastination outlet. And on that note, I should go put my laundry in the dryer.)

[Aemon Stark]

Brahm_K, on Jun 26 2008, 00.26, said:

My apologies. But if you agree, then whats the point of discussing it in this context?

Don't apologize to him - if he's going to pretend that red herrings are relevant points and then backtrack when caught, then he fully deserves whatever criticism gets sent his way.

Quote

Anyway, I've just been reading this thread over, and I'd like to say that you and addicted have acted with a lot of restraint in this thread, especially since there have been some admittedly kind of dickish posts directed towards your way. I too have joined in the Goodkind threads, but I do think we can be assholes at points, and if you enjoy the books, all power to you. But I do think that you and Myshkin were having an interesting conversation- I don't think he's lying. If you disagree with his opinion, then please do provide examples to show why you think he's taking things out of context- but simply calling him a liar doesn't do your argument any favours.

They've been reasonably restrained, I suppose, insofar as they haven't been claiming that GRRM makes a point of making derogatory statements about SoT and Goodkind in interviews (not any I've read/heard).

[Anatole Kuragin]

Is it bad that while I've been reading this thread I thought it was about Shannara?

[Diva]

Anatole Kuragin, on Jun 26 2008, 15.12, said:

Is it bad that while I've been reading this thread I thought it was about Shannara?

hee!

but didn't the writing improve as the series went on?  (asking anecdotally, I haven't actually read any of them)

[Anatole Kuragin]

I haven't read SoT or Shannara, but my friend's always tried to get me to read the latter and reading this thread has made me feel justified in ignoring him.

Then I realized it was the wrong series.

[Diva]

Anatole Kuragin, on Jun 26 2008, 15.52, said:

I haven't read SoT or Shannara, but my friend's always tried to get me to read the latter and reading this thread has made me feel justified in ignoring him.

Then I realized it was the wrong series.

my brother loved the Shanara books in high school, and was always trying to get me to read them.  But he also gave me Magician, and it was so turgid that I decided I did not trust his judgement ;)

as for SoT, well like some here I found the first book ok.  they got progressively worse, and after the Domine Dirtch book (sp?) with a premise so stupid I couldn't finish it, I just gave up.  So I didn't even get to the legendary Faith of the Fallen that caused screams of rage and frustration so loud around the world that I could hear them here in Sydney.  

Honest I could.  Seriously.

[The Pita]

Quote

Heh. The internet seems to bring out the worst in some people.

mystar brings out the worst in me, even when I do try to be civil. Some of the points raised made absolutely no sense, especially those made by mystar. If you ask me to quote it, I will drop this point because I am not going to even look through the archives of .net.
As I write in many threads (though not usually the TG threads and definitely not here), it's very similiar to who I am IRL.

[Watcher]

To get back to the OP intention.

I get from addicted and Kheldar they like SoT because it speaks to them. You both seem to be more generous in reading between the lines for the characters action then I and most people on this board are. One of the reasons I dropped the series was because I didn’t see any regret by Richard, Kahlan or Zed’s for any of their morally dubious deeds. I also absolutely complete reject an “end justifies the means” defense.

Can neither of you think of a better way for Richard or Kahlan to handle some of the examples given? Did Richard have to get to the person the peace protestors at that exact moment? Was there an immediate threat to him or his troops? Couldn’t Kahlan have sent a delegation to her half sister to talk about the very real threat? As a counclor to Midlands, couldn’t she authorized the delegation to overruled the Queen if they didn’t progress as Khalen wanted? Goodkind always seems to use a shotgun to solve any problems. Disagree with someone? Have them killed.

The Black Company by Glenn Cook is a counter example to morally ambiguous characters I like and find interesting. In the first book the Company locates an innkeeper that was poisoning their members. They raided the inn, and if I’m remembering this correctly, killed everyone inside guilty and innocent alike. The difference is that Cook doesn’t try to justify their actions as right or even wrong, that just how things are. Most of his characters would be honestly confused if someone would try to explain that not everyone in the inn should’ve been killed.

With Goodkind, he always paints Richards, Kahlan and Zedds actions as the most correct ones, when he bothers to explain at all

Anyways thanks for making this delay at least a little bit more bearable.

[Kheldar]

Myshkin, on Jun 25 2008, 23.56, said:

And you are a poor debater, with your circular reasoning, your propensity to use differing standpoints depending on what's being argued, and your attempts to discredit your opponents rather than their points.

Keep attacking me, Myshkin.  It doesn't bother me, and won't get a rise out of me.

Myshkin, on Jun 25 2008, 23.56, said:

You have called me a liar Kheldar, and yet you refuse to show any evidence to back up your accusation.  That marks you as a liar, and if you think anybody is going to be fooled by your lame excuses you are wrong.

I told you why I refuse to provide the evidence you seek.  Anyone who wants to can go look it up themselves.

My refusal to drag stuff from another board doesn't make me a liar.

But, tell me...what false name will you use the next time you come over and troll?  Will you again claim you're there for genuine discussion on the books?

Myshkin, on Jun 25 2008, 23.56, said:

You see what you did here?  You insulted me and then claimed that all you wanted to do was talk about the books.

If you want to be insulted, there's nothing I can say or do that will change it.  I'm not responsible for how you feel.

Myshkin, on Jun 25 2008, 23.56, said:

If all you want to do is talk about the books why insult me in the first place?  No, it seems to me that you were no longer able to effectivly argue your points and so instead decided on the "Myshkin is a liar" tactic.

There's been nothing to discuss with you regarding the books.  You've barely talked about the books, instead choosing to focus on how I've insulted you.

Myshkin, on Jun 25 2008, 23.56, said:

If you want to talk about the book, then do it.  But if you're going to lace your posts with insults to me then I will answer back in kind.

If you want to discuss the books, then do it.  Stop looking for excuses to be insulted and avoid the topic.

Tell me...why was Richard wrong to fight his way through the unarmed civilians in order to reach Nicolas?

[BranTheBuilder]

First off - a very interesting thread this, please don't let it degenerate into an argument.

Quote

Tell me...why was Richard wrong to fight his way through the unarmed civilians in order to reach Nicolas?

how about something along the lines of, "Because killing unarmed peace protestors is rather sick behaviour. A well rounded mind might try to think their way round the problem, either by discussion or by chosing a different route to their destination."
Really, pulling a gun/sword/axe/club every time you have a problem isn't the wisest or most rational of actions... last I heard that kind of behaviour was usually a sign of Sociopathy.

anyhoo, please keep the discussion going in a civil manner I'd hate to see this thread closed down due to one or two individuals losing their tempers.

Quote

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.

and many people reading this are not living in the USA, they are living in countries with different customs and laws.. speaking from the UK I'm rather glad that our country grew out of convicting minors as if they were adults - it may have lead to some interesting moral issues in some horrific cases, but at least we do take into consideration the immature/not fully formed nature of a child's mind. (but this is a whole seperate thread that should be started and discussed by better minds than mine...)

[Kheldar]

Myshkin, on Jun 26 2008, 00.08, said:

If this story has nothing whatsoever to do with Goodkind's books then what is the purpose of posting it in this thread?  It seems to me that you tried to make a point, got called out for using a poor analogy, and so tried to shift your position and claim you were trying to make a different point.

Brahm_K, on Jun 26 2008, 00.26, said:

My apologies. But if you agree, then whats the point of discussing it in this context?

I'll answer both of these in one response.

You, Myshkin, made a statement that had the implication that there is never a time when harming a child is appropriate.  You did this by citing TG's opinion that people would be well served by asking themselves "what would Richard do?", and then saying that Richard might kick a child in the face or order the slaughter of unarmed civilians.  The implication is clear.

My counter had nothing to do with Violet.  It had everything to do with the fact that there may be times when such action is necessary, no matter how undesirable.

By the way, Myshkin....there's a good example of a misrepresentation of facts.  Your statement implies that Richard did, in fact, order the slaughter of unarmed civilians.  He did no such thing.

Brahm_K, on Jun 26 2008, 00.26, said:

Anyway, I've just been reading this thread over, and I'd like to say that you and addicted have acted with a lot of restraint in this thread, especially since there have been some admittedly kind of dickish posts directed towards your way.

"Dickish" posts don't bother me.

Brahm_K, on Jun 26 2008, 00.26, said:

But I do think that you and Myshkin were having an interesting conversation- I don't think he's lying. If you disagree with his opinion, then please do provide examples to show why you think he's taking things out of context- but simply calling him a liar doesn't do your argument any favours.

I didn't "simply call him a liar".  I said he has misrepresented facts regarding the books, but refused to bring over stuff from another board.  There's a good example above.  We could argue whether or not his statement matches what's in the books...that'd at least be an on topic discussion.

[Kheldar]

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 00.37, said:

Then why the frak is your question relevant?

See above regarding this issue.  I took exception to Myshkin's implicit position that violence against a child is never warranted.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 00.37, said:

A regretful act in self-defence is still an act of self-defence. It is not strictly relevant whether the suicide bomber in question was a child or an adult or a discord-creating lemming.

Exactly.  It doesn't apply to the incident with Violet, but it does apply to a general declaration against such violence.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 00.37, said:

Ahhh, so in Tairy's world of arbitrary magic and reset buttons, Richard's actions are less objectionable because they can be reversed. How convenient - tell me, was Richard aware of this when he was kicking in her jaw with enough force to sever her tongue?

I've already said that Richard's action was wrong.  But since this is a long thread, I'll state it again.

Richard's action against Violet was wrong.  It didn't accomplish much of anything.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 00.37, said:

And what was Violet's crime that merited Richard's exaction of punishment?

Torture.  Beheading an innocent man (earlier in the book).  Abuse of Rachel (although I don't think Richard knew about that).  Being an all-around bad person.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 00.37, said:

And who made him judge, jury, and jaw-kicker?

Zedd, when he gave him the Sword of Truth and named him Seeker of Truth.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 00.37, said:

Let's even ignore Violet's age - is it right for someone - anyone - to kick in another person's jaw because said person was making them angry?

This is a misrepresentation of facts.  Richard didn't kick in Violet's jaw because she pissed him off (although his anger fueled his reaction).

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 00.37, said:

And being unarmed, how would this have been effected? How does one prevent the ouster of a tyrant (by whose definition?) with no force of arms?

Human shield.  A bunch of people standing between the "good guy" and the "bad guy", trusting that the "good guy" won't dare to attack them since they're unarmed, even though by doing so they are defending (without weapons) the "bad guy".  Doing so removes their innocence.

Have you read the book?  If not, then discussing the "tyrant" will be futile.  Nicolas was slaughtering innocents in order to feed his powers (IIRC, he somehow harnessed their soul at the moment of death...it's been a while since I read Naked Empire).

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 00.37, said:

It relates to the other example as well, but this reminds me very much of the portrayal of Shi Huang Di in The Emperor and the Assassin. He too struggles with the horrible acts that he believes are necessary to unify China, but in the end he orders whole cities put to the sword, and even orders the execution of children lest they grow up to take revenge. Initially, his lover Lady Zhao is captivated by his dream of unity and an end to the era of warring states. As the extent of his atrocities became clear, she turns against him and begins plotting his assassination.

There's a difference, though.  Richard doesn't go from committing himself (and his soldiers) to awful but necessary acts to outright slaughter.  Even in Phantom, his orders were to not directly harm innocents.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 00.37, said:

Malice? That would be "the intention or desire to do evil or cause injury to another person; active ill will or hatred". You seem to be under the mistaken impression that we are a bunch of humourless morons filled with "vitriol" and "hatred" - why, the very notion that we would enjoy making fun of bad prose! We're all just haterz!!

Has it not been the goal of some people here to "warn" others against the horribleness of TG's books?

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 00.37, said:

We claim the jaw-kicking incident is representative of dodgy characterization (to say nothing of the moral compass in the series ostensible hero). You come back that the specific isn't relevant, since the act can be justified if you completely strip away the context and every other feature of the scenario apart from the fact that it involves hurting a child.

I don't claim that Richard's act can be justified.  I merely claim that there can be times where violence against a child can be justified.

And speaking of stripping away context, look at your own post.  "it involves hurting a child."  The same could be said about the VietNam vet I posted above.  "he shot a ten year old boy in the head."  Taken out of context, it's horrible.  Put in context, it's still horrible, but understandable.  Again, this doesn't excuse Richard's actions, because the action accomplished little...but don't make Violet out to be a completely innocent child.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 00.37, said:

And, really, it's okay, because in a world of arbitrary magic, there are no real lasting consequences to anything.

I was not justifying Richard's action.  I was merely pointing out a fact that may not be known to those who have not read the books...Violet is not permanently maimed.  This doesn't justify Richard's actions, it just clarifies what has happened in the books.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 00.37, said:

It's even a-ok to slaughter pacifists if they're being inconvenient to your war-mongering goals.

I see you haven't read the book.  Richard doesn't "slaughter pacifists", he is forced (by necessity) to cut his way through moronic pacifists-at-any-price who are preventing him from not only getting to Nicolas, bur also getting to the antidote to the poison in his system.

Or is his life worth less because he has a sword?  Should he have just accepted defeat and death because a bunch of unarmed civilians were siding with an evil man and interposing their bodies between Richard and Nicolas?  Richard didn't choose to be poisoned...the pacifists chose to protect Nicolas, a man who was using them as fuel for his magic.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 00.37, said:

ASOIAF is put under a microscope here... the only times things ever seem to get particularly "controversial" are in the "When will ADWD be released?" threads and, of course, in one of many political or moral/ethical debates occuring in Gen Chatter. I love this board and it's free-wheeling nature, and even though I don't post my own original topics as often as I should, I'm quite happy to use it as my primary procrastination outlet. And on that note, I should go put my laundry in the dryer.)

Different boards, different purposes.  This one has a much larger membership enrollment, so there's more diversity of opinion.  GRRM also write a much more intricate story, which helps to foster such discussions.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 00.46, said:

Don't apologize to him - if he's going to pretend that red herrings are relevant points and then backtrack when caught, then he fully deserves whatever criticism gets sent his way.

There's been no backtracking, nor red herrings, although I can see how you view it that way.

Criticize away, just make sure it's justified.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 00.46, said:

They've been reasonably restrained, I suppose, insofar as they haven't been claiming that GRRM makes a point of making derogatory statements about SoT and Goodkind in interviews (not any I've read/heard).

Why would either of us make any claims about GRRM?

[Ran]

Again, lets keep it polite, folks.

[The Pita]

Kheldar, I would like to mention, as someone who has read Naked Empire, that the whole situation is ridiculous, and contrived to make what Richard did the only right thing.
The peaceful protesters want to protect someone (Nicholas). understood.
The person they want to protect him from (Richard) has a sword. Understood.
The person they're protecting (Nicholas) is also armed. A bit odd, but it could have a good reason.
The person they want to protect from (Richard) is killing them. Depends what kind of people they are, but let's assume for argument's sake that they would want to dull his blade with their bodies.
The person they're protecting (Nicholas) is killing them. Completely ridiculous. Why would they protect, with their lives, someone who is killing them? And please don't mention their completely idiotic Nihilist point of view that clashes with the whole "pacifist" thing they're holding on to.


The idea that they are preserving life would be a completely idiotic one, even by the mind-bogglingly stupid Bandakar's standards.

[Kheldar]

Watcher, on Jun 26 2008, 04.58, said:

To get back to the OP intention.

I get from addicted and Kheldar they like SoT because it speaks to them. You both seem to be more generous in reading between the lines for the characters action then I and most people on this board are.

Thanks.  People react differently to different writing styles, and I think this is one such example.

(A note to those desiring animosity: some people would use this opportunity to disparage the opposition, making statements like "we just don't need every little detail laid out for us...we're smarter than that".  This would be a stupid thing for me to say or believe.  I, for the most part, enjoyed GRRM's books, they just didn't grab me the way other books have.)

Watcher, on Jun 26 2008, 04.58, said:

One of the reasons I dropped the series was because I didn’t see any regret by Richard, Kahlan or Zed’s for any of their morally dubious deeds.

As you nicely put it, it's a generous reading between the lines.  I see regret from time to time in each of the characters listed above, it's just not developed in detail.

Watcher, on Jun 26 2008, 04.58, said:

I also absolutely complete reject an “end justifies the means” defense.

As do I.

Watcher, on Jun 26 2008, 04.58, said:

Can neither of you think of a better way for Richard or Kahlan to handle some of the examples given?

In some cases, yes.

Watcher, on Jun 26 2008, 04.58, said:

Did Richard have to get to the person the peace protestors at that exact moment? Was there an immediate threat to him or his troops?

Yes.  Richard was dying from poison, and the only antidote available was in the castle/palace/whatever it was called.  (It was destroyed, and Richard made more by letting magic guide him...which I thought was really lame, personally.)

Watcher, on Jun 26 2008, 04.58, said:

Couldn’t Kahlan have sent a delegation to her half sister to talk about the very real threat?

Her half-sister was already aware of the very real threat...she had been imprisoned and raped by the Imperial Order.  Her capital city had been destroyed by the IO, her people raped and murdered.

Watcher, on Jun 26 2008, 04.58, said:

As a counclor to Midlands, couldn’t she authorized the delegation to overruled the Queen if they didn’t progress as Khalen wanted?

As Mother Confessor, she didn't need to authorize a delegation to overrule the Queen...she had that authority on her own.  Her half-brother ignored that authority.

Watcher, on Jun 26 2008, 04.58, said:

Goodkind always seems to use a shotgun to solve any problems. Disagree with someone? Have them killed.

That's not quite what happened in either case.  Characters weren't killed for disagreeing with the main characters.

Watcher, on Jun 26 2008, 04.58, said:

The Black Company by Glenn Cook is a counter example to morally ambiguous characters I like and find interesting. In the first book the Company locates an innkeeper that was poisoning their members. They raided the inn, and if I’m remembering this correctly, killed everyone inside guilty and innocent alike. The difference is that Cook doesn’t try to justify their actions as right or even wrong, that just how things are. Most of his characters would be honestly confused if someone would try to explain that not everyone in the inn should’ve been killed.

TG doesn't have his protagonists killing guilty and innocent alike for sheer glee, or for retribution.

Watcher, on Jun 26 2008, 04.58, said:

With Goodkind, he always paints Richards, Kahlan and Zedds actions as the most correct ones, when he bothers to explain at all

Yes, he does, most of the time.  TG is an Objectivist, and Objectivists believe that their Logical and Reasoned course of action is going to be the "most correct" one.  It's a topic I've hashed out with Objectivists with some frequency...the flaw in logic that, at it's base, assumes that the Reasoner has sufficient information to make the determination that the course of action is, in fact, the best....as opposed to "the best he could come up with on short notice".

The actions are only wrong when the characters have abandoned Logic and Reason.  Given that the series is basically a primer on Objectivism, this is understandable, even though it makes the characters less human, less realistic. Rarely is there a flaw in their reasoning...the flaws come from not using reason.