406 replies to this topic

[Jaxom 1974]

Quote

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?

That's applying the logical to the illogical.  :P

Quote

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.

If one concedes, and I'm not sure I am, that there can be times of extreme need to use force and/or violence against children, "no matter how undesirable", I still fail to see how the situation with Violet fits this definition.  Irregardless of what had been happening to him, in the specific scene we're given, Richard does not lash out until Violet sticks her tongue out at him.  In the specific scene we're given, there is no threat on his life by Violet.  There is simply no counter for this, no matter how the spin is attempted.  Again, if one concedes that there may be times of extreme need, and again I do not believe I'm agreeing with it, that there is a time and place where violence against a child is required to save one's life, this specific scene given to us by Mr. Goodkind cannot be considered one.  Lashing out at Violet did nothing but to make Richard feel better.  It didn't save his life.  It didn't allow him to escape.

Let's back this up a little for some perspective on it.  I've *shudder* gone back to the text.  Richard's first meeting with Violet:

"Princess Violet scowled up at Kahlan, 'Your hair is too long.  Perhaps we should cut it for you.'
Richard detected the slightest smile of satisfaction on the Queen's face.  He decided it was time to elevate her level of worry.
The Sword of Truth came out, sending its distinctive ring around the room, the stone amplifing the sound.  With the sword point an inch from Princess Violet's nose, he let the anger of it rage through him, to make his words more dramatic.
'Bow to the Mother Confessor,' he hissed, 'or die.'
Zedd acted bored.  Kahlan waited calmly.  No one else had eyes as wide as the Princess as she stared at the sword point.  She dropped to her knees and bowed her head.  Standing back up, her eyes went to him,as if asking if the bow was all right.
'Be careful how you use that tongue,' Richard sneered.  'The next time I will seperate it from you.'"
(WFR)

So.  Not only was his violence against Violet wrong and unnecessary, it's was premeditated.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Werthead, on Jun 25 2008, 20.27, said:

Does seeing him in actionhelp?

This scene also shows Kevin "Lucius Vorenus" McKidd as one of the priess lost in the lingerie section.

ETA: Flight Into Terror complete episode - a classic (30 mins altogether)  -  part one   http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

part 2: http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

part 3: http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Edited by Derfel Cadarn, 26 June 2008 - 09:52 AM.

[Jaxom 1974]

Kheldar, on Jun 26 2008, 08.40, said:

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.

Wait.  Remind me why you're defending this then again?

Kheldar, on Jun 26 2008, 08.40, said:

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).

Is it?  Again, as the text showed, it was premeditated on Richard's part.

Kheldar, on Jun 26 2008, 08.40, said:

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

In point of fact, to share one's opinion isn't exactly "malice".  And I think it should be noted that pretty much all warnings constitute a "If you gotta, we understand, just don't come crying to us when we're right because we'll say we told you so."  ;)  We warn against paying money for the books, suggesting hitting second hand stores or the library instead.

Kheldar, on Jun 26 2008, 08.40, said:

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.

Rationalized, in times of war as your Vietnam example, is still not the same as justified.  And regardless of the rationalization, I bet that vet (and I know I can't really know) would have a little bit or remorse or reflection after the fact.

Kheldar, on Jun 26 2008, 08.40, said:

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.

Kheldar, on Jun 26 2008, 08.40, said:

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.)

Holy crap!  You mean he could have used the magic from the beginning to get himself the antidote rather than cut his way through the peace protesters?  Well damn.  Hindsight and all, right?

Quote

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".

Seems to me, that from this view you give of the O'ist, that TG kinda defeats his own purpose.  

Richard needs the antidote.
Protesters in his way, unarmed.
Richard uses the sword to cut through to get to the antidote.
Turns out the antidote is destroyed anyway.
WAIT!  Magic in the sword will allow Richard to recreate the antidote.  If only he'd consulted the sword to begin with.

So the ultimate solution to the problem, given by TG, seems to defeat the message of Richard going through the protestors.

Edited by El Jax Campeador, 26 June 2008 - 09:33 AM.

[Aemon Stark]

Kheldar, on Jun 26 2008, 09.40, said:

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

It isn't - in fact, violence is never warranted against non-combatants, or outside of a standard police action or situation where it is necessary for self-defence.

Quote

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

No, it doesn't apply at all. Thank you for repeating it. Your example is simply irrelevant to the entire context of the Violet situation, and as such does not inform it in any way.

Quote

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.

Right. So if it's wrong, and he's unrepentant, what kind of "hero" is he?

Quote

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.

And she carried out these acts personally? Eight-year-olds are by definition immature, and even when they're "bad", they do not deserve to have their jaws shattered by a putative hero. You've already said it was wrong - why try justifying it?

The problem is that this sort of act makes little psychological sense, unless Richard is simply a violent sociopath like Gregor Clegane. One of the reasons why some have trouble with Jaime Lannister's apparent redemption is the fact that he pushed Bran out that window - a monstrous act - but it can at least be explained as self-preservation, "The things I do for love."

Quote

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

Who granted Zedd the power to give Richard such authority?

Quote

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).

You're right - he did that because she stuck her tongue out at him.

Quote

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).

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.

Ahh, so it can be explained away by contrivance. Richard always does the Right Thing because the situation is artificially constructed so that it conforms to questionable "ends justify means" explanations.

Quote

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

Perhaps indirectly, and it has had that effect at times, I think. Alas, I read WFR when I was about 14, so it's already too late for me. These warnings are conveyed mainly by unabridged passages from the books - with commentary and helpful annotations.

Quote

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.

No, you claimed that self-defence is justified even if the threat comes from a ten-year-old suicide bomber, which is fair enough. As for Violet's innocence or lack thereof, it really doesn't matter. Violence does not become justified based on a subjective assessment of "innocence" and you seem to be arguing that Richard's actions were only unjustified since they had no pragmatic beneficial effect. I should say not!

Quote

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.

And it still doesn't matter - that a magic reset button exists means that no acts of any character really matters, since all can be set right within the arbitrary confines of the SoT world.

What sort of "end" would've justified Richard's "means" re: Violet? If it had accomplished more than a "little", would it have been justified?

Quote

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.

You're right - making it that far in this series is beyond my abilities. Otherwise, these remain ludicrous plot contrivances. The situation is utterly and completely absurd. What was TG trying to convey by it? That people who are completely and irredeemably stupid should be cut down to make way for the Righteous Hero?

Quote

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.

Indeed.

Quote

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

Eh, of course it was a red herring, and now you're claiming that it's both irrelevant and not a red herring. That's... interesting. From Wikipedia:

"Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument. This is known formally in the English vocabulary as Digression which is a neutrally connotated "Red herring"." (link)

Quote

Criticize away, just make sure it's justified.

That's what I've been doing.

Quote

Why would either of us make any claims about GRRM?

You wouldn't, I suppose, because you're not merely part of Mystar's echo chamber.

[awesome possum]

Holy crap; can't you all just admit that some people think the books suck rotten donkey dung while others thinks they're good?  What's so difficult about that?  

Personally, I own several of Goodkind books.  My mom frequently goes to yard sales and always picks me up books she thinks I'll enjoy.  I've kept all of the Goodkind books she's brought me.  They're in my trunk right now, waiting to serve the most important purpose they'll ever serve:  as kindling for my campfire next weekend.

That's what I think about the books.  But I'm not going to try and convince people who come from a Terry freaking Goodkind fansite that my opinion of the books are right, and I sure as hell am not going to get into a "debate" with them as to why my opinion of the books are wrong.  

I mean, to each their own, but reading this thread is like watching a train wreck.  I can't look away, but also don't understand why the wreck survivors are arguing with the paramedics as to why they should have been on the train with them.

Edited by awesome possum, 26 June 2008 - 10:03 AM.

[Kheldar]

PitaCake, on Jun 26 2008, 09.57, said:

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.

I grant you "ridiculous".  Any story is contrived to make the point the author is aiming at.  Add in a "poorly", and you'll find some agreement.

PitaCake, on Jun 26 2008, 09.57, said:

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.

Odd?  Why odd?  He's found a little country filled with people he can control because they're sheep unwilling to defend themselves.  Such a group would be easy to control.

PitaCake, on Jun 26 2008, 09.57, said:

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.

They're opposing Richard's self-defense.  They also oppose Nicholas' use of violence.  In their minds, Richard and Nicholas are both the same, in that they both want to use violence.

PitaCake, on Jun 26 2008, 09.57, said:

The person they're protecting (Nicholas) is killing them. Completely ridiculous. Why would they protect, with their lives, someone who is killing them?

Because their society, in complete isolation for thousands of years, has completely eschewed violence.  It's against their very nature to act violently against another.  In a sense, they've been brainwashed since birth to believe that any violent act is wrong, even an act done in self-defense.  Because of this, they have no rational way in which to react...they can't oppose him violently, so all they can do is hope to convince him that his actions are wrong (much like the do with Richard).

PitaCake, on Jun 26 2008, 09.57, said:

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

Not really.  It's a case of (sorry to use a cliche) missing the forest for the trees.  They can see Nicholas (sorry for the misspellings of his name earlier).  They can't see the faceless people who aren't in imminent threat of death, but will be killed by Nicholas in the future.  Even when there is immediate threat to a life, they are unable to justify violence in the name of self-defense.  The complete rejection of violence isn't about preserving life, although they think it is.  In a scenario where Nicholas is about to kill James and Paul (two made-up names), they still would choose not to stop Nicholas through violent means.

It's an extreme case (TG is good at those), grown in isolation...they never needed to use violence against other humans to protect themselves because of their magically-imposed isolation (and they were prevented from leaving, even though they were immune to magic, by the badlands).  It's anathema to them, abhorrent to even contemplate, and a sign of an unbalanced mind.

[Aemon Stark]

awesome possum, on Jun 26 2008, 11.00, said:

Holy crap; can't you all just admit that some people think the books suck rotten donkey dung while others thinks they're good?  What's so difficult about that?

I'm in class "watching" presentations. What else is there to do?

Quote

Personally, I own several of Goodkind books.  My mom frequently goes to yard sales and always picks me up books she thinks I'll enjoy.  I've kept all of the Goodkind books she's brought me.  They're in my trunk right now, waiting to serve the most important purpose they'll ever serve:  as kindling for my campfire next weekend.

That's what I think about the books.  But I'm not going to try and convince people who come from a Terry freaking Goodkind fansite that my opinion of the books are right, and I sure as hell am not going to get into a "debate" with them as to why my opinion of the books are wrong.  

I mean, to each their own, but reading this thread is like watching a train wreck.  I can't look away, but also don't understand why the wreck survivors are arguing with the paramedics as to why they should have been on the train with them.

And just imagine how much more fun it is to participate in!

[Kheldar]

El Jax Campeador, on Jun 26 2008, 10.09, said:

If one concedes, and I'm not sure I am, that there can be times of extreme need to use force and/or violence against children, "no matter how undesirable", I still fail to see how the situation with Violet fits this definition.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this: I was not justifying Richard's actions against Violet, I was responding to Myshkin's implicit assertion that violence toward any child is always wrong.

El Jax Campeador, on Jun 26 2008, 10.09, said:

So.  Not only was his violence against Violet wrong and unnecessary, it's was premeditated.

Not under the standard meaning of "premeditated".  You seem to be trying to make it look like Richard didn't like the way girl spoke about the Mother Confessor, so he plotted out how he could separate her tongue from her body.

Remove the names and acts, and look at it from a different perspective:
X does something.
Y says "Don't do that again, or there will be a negative impact"
X, after some time, does it again.
Y imposes the negative impact.

That's not premeditation.  I disagree with what Richard did, but I don't consider it to be premeditated mutilation of an innocent child whose only transgression was to speak poorly about Kahlan.

Oh...one thing that often overlooked on this issue: Richard made what amounts to a promise of retribution. According to a later book, if a wizard makes a promise, his magic requires him to keep it.  This still doesn't excuse the act, it just shifts the moment the "wrong action" was taken...from actually kicking her to issuing such a promise/warning.

El Jax Campeador, on Jun 26 2008, 10.27, said:

Wait.  Remind me why you're defending this then again?

I'm not.

El Jax Campeador, on Jun 26 2008, 10.27, said:

Is it?  Again, as the text showed, it was premeditated on Richard's part.

Not premeditated.  Forewarned, foreshadowed, promised retribution if an action was repeated.

El Jax Campeador, on Jun 26 2008, 10.27, said:

In point of fact, to share one's opinion isn't exactly "malice".  And I think it should be noted that pretty much all warnings constitute a "If you gotta, we understand, just don't come crying to us when we're right because we'll say we told you so."  ;)  We warn against paying money for the books, suggesting hitting second hand stores or the library instead.

Sharing ones opinion is fine.  Putting in efforts to discredit the author such as misrepresenting facts isn't.

El Jax Campeador, on Jun 26 2008, 10.27, said:

Rationalized, in times of war as your Vietnam example, is still not the same as justified.  And regardless of the rationalization, I bet that vet (and I know I can't really know) would have a little bit or remorse or reflection after the fact.

It devastated him.  But how would something like that not be justified?

Again, this had nothing to do with TG's books...it had to do with Myshkin's apparent position that violence against a child is never justified.

El Jax Campeador, on Jun 26 2008, 10.27, said:

Holy crap!  You mean he could have used the magic from the beginning to get himself the antidote rather than cut his way through the peace protesters?  Well damn.  Hindsight and all, right?

Like I said, I thought it was a really bad resolution to the story arc.  But, no, he couldn't have.  The way TG wrote it, Richard's magic operates through need (that's how he justified the magic-guided creation of the antidote)...with a viable source for the antidote, the magic-inducing need isn't there.

El Jax Campeador, on Jun 26 2008, 10.27, said:

Richard needs the antidote.
Protesters in his way, unarmed.
Richard uses the sword to cut through to get to the antidote.
Turns out the antidote is destroyed anyway.
WAIT!  Magic in the sword will allow Richard to recreate the antidote.  If only he'd consulted the sword to begin with.

So the ultimate solution to the problem, given by TG, seems to defeat the message of Richard going through the protestors.

Erm...I'd have to check, but I don't believe it's the magic of the sword that guides him.

Like I said before, Naked Empire isn't high on my list of "good books".  There were too many problems I had with how people acted/reacted...and this exact situation was resolved.  How did the magic guide him to tell others to take this herb and boil it for X minutes, then filter it in that way, then mix it with the other crap that's been simmering for 8 hours, then add the other thing, and do this complicated final step?

[Foreverlad]

Kheldar, Addicted,

Would you mind sharing your opinions on the series' end?  How did you feel about everything coming together the way it did?  Addicted, I know you've mentioned it felt rushed.  Did it seem like a cop-out the way everything just worked itself out?  Did you feel the IO situation was handled properly by both Richard and Goodkind?

I ask out of curiosity.  The two of you have put up with QUITE a bit, I'm not hoping to add to it  :P

[Jaxom 1974]

Kheldar, on Jun 26 2008, 10.37, said:

Erm...I'd have to check, but I don't believe it's the magic of the sword that guides him.

From your earlier post: 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.)

Don't have the book, so I don't know specifically if it was the magic of the sword, but since that's pretty much the only magic I ever recall Richard having, it's a fair guess.  "Blade be true this day" and all that garbage.

[Relic]

El Jax Campeador, on Jun 26 2008, 11.44, said:

From your earlier post: 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.)

Don't have the book, so I don't know specifically if it was the magic of the sword, but since that's pretty much the only magic I ever recall Richard having, it's a fair guess.  "Blade be true this day" and all that garbage.

jax im starting to think there is something really wrong with you =P

[addicted]

To clarify with my POV:

It seems to me that some major points have been skimmed concerning the Violet scene.

Up to the point that Violet got her jaw kicked, she had been depicted as a spoiled, power hungry brat, who not only had a taste for torture but was also being groomed in the "art of torture". People are conveniently forgetting Richard's state of mind, which was not only partitioned at this point (effectively gone) but after several days of abuse/severe torture by both Mord-Sith and Violet (Violet only for a few minutes/hrs?). Next let's recall the point that Richard had, at this time, been resolved that he was going to die by her hand or Rahl's. He was also of the mindset that if Violet/Queen Melina did kill him, his ultimate goal was achieved (Rahl would not get info needed concerning the boxes/counted shadows).  Then came the threat to Kahlan (and a very descriptive threat from an "innocent" child.) Kahlan had been his life-line, it was the only time "he felt the magic awakening" (unknown magic at this point of the story). Richard was doing nothing but trying to protect Kahlan and countless others that would fall under Violet's newly developed tyranny, effectively resorting to the only thing he could do before dying.

The scene prior (at first introductions) Richard was playing a role: protector of The Mother Confessor, as well as, his real role of The Seeker. They were there to intimidate their way in to deal w/ the wizard Giller vs, using brute force. The "premeditation" was intimidation...not violence. Kahlan had no wizard protecting her, Queen Melina did. There had to be enough intimidation to achieve their means. Plus that The Mother Confessor role was superior to a Queen's. "Queen's bow to the Mother Confessor", and such blatant disrespect, in their world, called for a reaction.

~A

[Jaxom 1974]

Kheldar, on Jun 26 2008, 10.37, said:

Not under the standard meaning of "premeditated".  You seem to be trying to make it look like Richard didn't like the way girl spoke about the Mother Confessor, so he plotted out how he could separate her tongue from her body.

pre·med·i·tat·ed   Audio Help   /prɪˈmɛdɪˌteɪtɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pri-med-i-tey-tid] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective done deliberately; planned in advance

Simply put, I don't think there is a lawyer in this real world of ours who wouldn't get a conviction against Richard for what he did to Violet, as he flat out threatened her.  Threatening someone ahead of time, or as you put it, "a promise of retribution" is a textbook definition of premeditation.  As is the example:

Quote

Remove the names and acts, and look at it from a different perspective:
X does something.
Y says "Don't do that again, or there will be a negative impact"
X, after some time, does it again.
Y imposes the negative impact.

\

you've given.

Kheldar, on Jun 26 2008, 10.37, said:

Oh...one thing that often overlooked on this issue: Richard made what amounts to a promise of retribution. According to a later book, if a wizard makes a promise, his magic requires him to keep it.  This still doesn't excuse the act, it just shifts the moment the "wrong action" was taken...from actually kicking her to issuing such a promise/warning.

Worst possible argument, for this situation, you could make.  Richard made a promise of retribution, and because we're told in a later book that he's supposed to follow up on it because wizard's have to?  :lol:  Sorry, Khel, but that's just a wee bit of stretching the ret-con to make something so deplorable seem justified.  No way.  As a lawyer might say, if this was brought up in a courtroom, "Assumes facts not in evidence".  

Kheldar, on Jun 26 2008, 10.37, said:

Not premeditated.  Forewarned, foreshadowed, promised retribution if an action was repeated.

No.  Again.  Premeditated.  And something that would get anyone of us thrown into jail for a very very very long time if we did something like that.

Kheldar, on Jun 26 2008, 10.37, said:

Again, this had nothing to do with TG's books...it had to do with Myshkin's apparent position that violence against a child is never justified.

The problem is you've failed to convince anyone that violence against a child can be justified.  I'll stipulate to rationalized in a time of war, but never justified.  And in any case, Richard wasn't at war with Violet.

Kheldar, on Jun 26 2008, 10.37, said:

Like I said, I thought it was a really bad resolution to the story arc.  But, no, he couldn't have.  The way TG wrote it, Richard's magic operates through need (that's how he justified the magic-guided creation of the antidote)...with a viable source for the antidote, the magic-inducing need isn't there.

Richard needs the antidote.  He's faced with the obstacle of the protesters.  Why wouldn't the magic have worked for him then?  Because otherwise TG wouldn't have had a chance for a kick ass one sided battle where the "hero" tries to prove a flawed, unrealistic philosophy.  The simple fact that there was another solution available to Richard instead of slaughtering innocents simply seems to highlight the fact that Mr. Goodkind is just a really bad writer.

Something you almost seem to agree with, at least in so far as this particular book is concerned.

[Kheldar]

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 10.51, said:

It isn't - in fact, violence is never warranted against non-combatants, or outside of a standard police action or situation where it is necessary for self-defence.

You've got a mixed message here.  What if the combatant is a child?  Is violence against the child then justified?

You'll get no argument from me on the latter part...violence directed against non-combatants is wrong.  (BTW, before anyone tries to jump on this, people who place themselves in the midst of combat or position themselves where they suspect there will be combat are not "non-combatants"...they are unarmed passive combatants.)

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 10.51, said:

No, it doesn't apply at all. Thank you for repeating it. Your example is simply irrelevant to the entire context of the Violet situation, and as such does not inform it in any way.

It wasn't meant to inform on the Violet situation.  For the 18 billionth time, it was relevant only to Myshkin's apparent complete opposition to there ever being justification for harming a child.

I have 5 kids.  Every time I type out a phrase like "justification for harming a child", my stomach turns.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 10.51, said:

Right. So if it's wrong, and he's unrepentant, what kind of "hero" is he?

A flawed one.  TG may not think so, and may not portray him that way, but he is.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 10.51, said:

And she carried out these acts personally? Eight-year-olds are by definition immature, and even when they're "bad", they do not deserve to have their jaws shattered by a putative hero. You've already said it was wrong - why try justifying it?

I'm not trying to justify it.  I think I've said that about 20 times in this thread.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 10.51, said:

Who granted Zedd the power to give Richard such authority?

It's his right and duty as First Wizard.

No, I don't know how he got the position as First Wizard.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 10.51, said:

You're right - he did that because she stuck her tongue out at him.

That was the trigger, not the reason.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 10.51, said:

No, you claimed that self-defence is justified even if the threat comes from a ten-year-old suicide bomber, which is fair enough.

Which means that violence against a child can be justified.  For the 21st time, that's all I was talking about...not Violet.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 10.51, said:

What sort of "end" would've justified Richard's "means" re: Violet? If it had accomplished more than a "little", would it have been justified?

No.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 10.51, said:

You're right - making it that far in this series is beyond my abilities. Otherwise, these remain ludicrous plot contrivances. The situation is utterly and completely absurd. What was TG trying to convey by it? That people who are completely and irredeemably stupid should be cut down to make way for the Righteous Hero?

Ask TG what he intended, not me.  What I got out of it was that the Peace Protesters were, in effect, choosing to support "the bad guy" and attempting to stop "the good guy" from dispensing justice.  That they were unarmed is immaterial.  The effect of their actions, if successful, would be to perpetuate Nicholas' position and allow him to kill more people.  To that degree, they were acting on behalf of the "bad guy".

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 10.51, said:

Eh, of course it was a red herring, and now you're claiming that it's both irrelevant and not a red herring. That's... interesting. From Wikipedia:

"Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument. This is known formally in the English vocabulary as Digression which is a neutrally connotated "Red herring"." (link)

In an online forum, and informal conversation, it's called a side topic, or a tangent.  If this were a formal debate, 90% of this thread would fit the category of "red herring", since way too much of it doesn't deal with the books.

[Aemon Stark]

addicted, on Jun 26 2008, 11.53, said:

To clarify with my POV:

It seems to me that some major points have been skimmed concerning the Violet scene.

Up to the point that Violet got her jaw kicked, she had been depicted as a spoiled, power hungry brat, who not only had a taste for torture but was also being groomed in the "art of torture". People are conveniently forgetting Richard's state of mind, which was not only partitioned at this point (effectively gone) but after several days of abuse/severe torture by both Mord-Sith and Violet (Violet only for a few minutes/hrs?). Next let's recall the point that Richard had, at this time, been resolved that he was going to die by her hand or Rahl's. He was also of the mindset that if Violet/Queen Melina did kill him, his ultimate goal was achieved (Rahl would not get info needed concerning the boxes/counted shadows).  Then came the threat to Kahlan (and a very descriptive threat from an "innocent" child.) Kahlan had been his life-line, it was the only time "he felt the magic awakening" (unknown magic at this point of the story). Richard was doing nothing but trying to protect Kahlan and countless others that would fall under Violet's newly developed tyranny, effectively resorting to the only thing he could do before dying.

Aggravated assault does not become justified by a person's "mindset".

Quote

The scene prior (at first introductions) Richard was playing a role: protector of The Mother Confessor, as well as, his real role of The Seeker. They were there to intimidate their way in to deal w/ the wizard Giller vs, using brute force. The "premeditation" was intimidation...not violence. Kahlan had no wizard protecting her, Queen Melina did. There had to be enough intimidation to achieve their means. Plus that The Mother Confessor role was superior to a Queen's. "Queen's bow to the Mother Confessor", and such blatant disrespect, in their world, called for a reaction.

~A

Ah, so Richard, being the good little authoritarian that he is, sought to intimidate the wizard and punish disrespect by kicking in Violet's jaw. He made an example of her, since of course as an eight-year-old, she was far beyond redemption, and therefore should be assaulted as means to his ends.

[Kheldar]

awesome possum, on Jun 26 2008, 11.00, said:

Holy crap; can't you all just admit that some people think the books suck rotten donkey dung while others thinks they're good?  What's so difficult about that?

Nothing.  I think I said that in one of my first posts here (although not in quite the same words ;))

awesome possum, on Jun 26 2008, 11.00, said:

That's what I think about the books.  But I'm not going to try and convince people who come from a Terry freaking Goodkind fansite that my opinion of the books are right, and I sure as hell am not going to get into a "debate" with them as to why my opinion of the books are wrong.

Actually, your opinions of the books are right.  That's what you think about the books.  I'm not trying to change your mind...at least you've given them a chance by reading at least one (you did at least try, right?)

[Lightsnake]

addicted, on Jun 26 2008, 11.53, said:

To clarify with my POV:

It seems to me that some major points have been skimmed concerning the Violet scene.

Up to the point that Violet got her jaw kicked, she had been depicted as a spoiled, power hungry brat, who not only had a taste for torture but was also being groomed in the "art of torture". People are conveniently forgetting Richard's state of mind, which was not only partitioned at this point (effectively gone) but after several days of abuse/severe torture by both Mord-Sith and Violet (Violet only for a few minutes/hrs?). Next let's recall the point that Richard had, at this time, been resolved that he was going to die by her hand or Rahl's. He was also of the mindset that if Violet/Queen Melina did kill him, his ultimate goal was achieved (Rahl would not get info needed concerning the boxes/counted shadows).  Then came the threat to Kahlan (and a very descriptive threat from an "innocent" child.) Kahlan had been his life-line, it was the only time "he felt the magic awakening" (unknown magic at this point of the story). Richard was doing nothing but trying to protect Kahlan and countless others that would fall under Violet's newly developed tyranny, effectively resorting to the only thing he could do before dying.

The scene prior (at first introductions) Richard was playing a role: protector of The Mother Confessor, as well as, his real role of The Seeker. They were there to intimidate their way in to deal w/ the wizard Giller vs, using brute force. The "premeditation" was intimidation...not violence. Kahlan had no wizard protecting her, Queen Melina did. There had to be enough intimidation to achieve their means. Plus that The Mother Confessor role was superior to a Queen's. "Queen's bow to the Mother Confessor", and such blatant disrespect, in their world, called for a reaction.

~A

Going to correct you here, Addicted.

For starters, when Violet issues her threat to Richard against Kahlan, Richard feels 'sorry for the little princess.' There is no mention of anger, rage, disgust or anything of the like towards her...simply pity.
It is only when Violet sticks her tongue out at him does Richard flip out and kick her in the jaw.
And on the subject of the Mother Confessor, I find how they're portrayed as anything resembling moral or righteous absolutely appalling. We're talking about a group that literally steals volition, something Terry Goodkind considers about the most important thing human beings have for nothing more than selfishness. It's made explicitly clear that only 'a few' take bad people as mates...but only a few. That means the vast majority take good, strong men, whether they have families or wives or loved ones, force them to kill their own children if they're males, and when one single person opens his mouth against this in Faith of the Fallen, his opinion is outright dismissed, despite his rather fair objection that he lost his dad and his kingdom lost a strong king.

Frankly, I'm not finding much vitriol for those who don't bow and scrape to the Mother Confessor for some divine right nonsense that already goes against some of the message Terry was trying to impart.

[Kheldar]

Foreverlad, on Jun 26 2008, 11.37, said:

Kheldar, Addicted,

Would you mind sharing your opinions on the series' end?  How did you feel about everything coming together the way it did?  Addicted, I know you've mentioned it felt rushed.  Did it seem like a cop-out the way everything just worked itself out?  Did you feel the IO situation was handled properly by both Richard and Goodkind?

I ask out of curiosity.  The two of you have put up with QUITE a bit, I'm not hoping to add to it  :P

You're not adding to it at all.

I found the conclusion to be mostly reasonable.  I had some problems with certain portions of how Richard figured everything out.  The ending seemed a bit rushed (which is my typical reaction to the end of a TG book.  I don't know if it's because of the writing or because I'm usually trying to finish the book at 2:30am since I "only have 30 more pages to read" ;))

El Jax Campeador, on Jun 26 2008, 11.44, said:

Don't have the book, so I don't know specifically if it was the magic of the sword, but since that's pretty much the only magic I ever recall Richard having, it's a fair guess.  "Blade be true this day" and all that garbage.

By this time in the story, Richard has a better understanding of his own magical abilities.

Aemon Stark, on Jun 26 2008, 12.05, said:

Aggravated assault does not become justified by a person's "mindset".

Innocent by Reason of Insanity.

[Jaxom 1974]

addicted, on Jun 26 2008, 10.53, said:

To clarify with my POV:

It seems to me that some major points have been skimmed concerning the Violet scene.

Up to the point that Violet got her jaw kicked, she had been depicted as a spoiled, power hungry brat, who not only had a taste for torture but was also being groomed in the "art of torture". People are conveniently forgetting Richard's state of mind, which was not only partitioned at this point (effectively gone) but after several days of abuse/severe torture by both Mord-Sith and Violet (Violet only for a few minutes/hrs?). Next let's recall the point that Richard had, at this time, been resolved that he was going to die by her hand or Rahl's. He was also of the mindset that if Violet/Queen Melina did kill him, his ultimate goal was achieved (Rahl would not get info needed concerning the boxes/counted shadows).  Then came the threat to Kahlan (and a very descriptive threat from an "innocent" child.) Kahlan had been his life-line, it was the only time "he felt the magic awakening" (unknown magic at this point of the story). Richard was doing nothing but trying to protect Kahlan and countless others that would fall under Violet's newly developed tyranny, effectively resorting to the only thing he could do before dying.

As I do not want to feed the idea that we're all bad and mean, I will refrain from using any emoticons right here.

Addicted, I applaud your effort to come up with a viable justification for Richard kicking the wicked little Princess Violet.  It doesn't wash though, I'm afraid.

addicted, on Jun 26 2008, 10.53, said:

The scene prior (at first introductions) Richard was playing a role: protector of The Mother Confessor, as well as, his real role of The Seeker. They were there to intimidate their way in to deal w/ the wizard Giller vs, using brute force. The "premeditation" was intimidation...not violence. Kahlan had no wizard protecting her, Queen Melina did. There had to be enough intimidation to achieve their means. Plus that The Mother Confessor role was superior to a Queen's. "Queen's bow to the Mother Confessor", and such blatant disrespect, in their world, called for a reaction.

Intimidation is premeditation.  

pre·med·i·tat·ed   Audio Help   /prɪˈmɛdɪˌteɪtɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pri-med-i-tey-tid] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective done deliberately; planned in advance

Or are we going to simply declare it's a matter of opinion over definition?  

And declaring "in their world" is a weak argument.  If we're going to look at WFR, and TG's works in general, as blueprints on how to live better lives through O'ism in our world, then our world's rules still have to apply.  We can't work within their world's rules because we don't live there.  But if I tried any of the heroes action our world, I'd be sitting in some maximum security prison because my defense would be, "But your honor, I only wanted to intimidate the child, but she stuck her tongue out one too many times and (as you'll learn in a future tale no one knows about yet) I had to do it because I'm living my life in the moment.  It demanded a response that was direct and damn the consequences!"

[Jaxom 1974]

Kheldar, on Jun 26 2008, 11.14, said:

By this time in the story, Richard has a better understanding of his own magical abilities.

Which is entirely derived from the sword.  But irregardless, from the sword or within him, it doesn't change the fact that he had another option for the solution of his poison problem.