GOODKIND V

[Eurytus]

For you poor ignorant bastards out there, the mriswith are really powerful wizards who gave up their power thousands of years ago to turn into lizards that could become invisible (shut up, it makes perfect sense, really).

Has Goodkind been reading David Icke? Is this codeword for Jews?

SNATCH: 'Raaach aaaarg, widddh dhis Ferrier Roche, oog rhhaaallly sssspoilllin usssss.'

Awesome! I didn't think that advert could be made more kitsch but somehow you've managed it.

[14th Dragon]

ETA: Something just occurred to me: Where the hell did the Mord-Sith learn all that obscure history anyway? I mean, I don't think even Zedd was aware of that gar stuff.

Well, to be fair, it is only this one Mord Sith who has been reading an achient diary in a dead language that was behind shields on Richard could get through. But you would have thought information this important would have been a bit more readily available.

Though the ionconsitency is painful. Just one scene before there was a mriswith queen laying eggs all over the place.

The rest of the gar deus ex machina seems a little sloppy though. I always feel like that when someone wins because of that kickass ability everyone knew he had, even if he never used and never spoke about it before.

Well, Gratch being able to "see" mriswith was well establishhed. Wizards commanding Gars was also well established through Zed and Darken. Now that one gar with a wizard connection can attain instant leadership over all gars, that is a bit odd. (But precedent for that sort of thing is well established in the Terryverse.)

As does Kahlan. She frequently gives Richard her "special smile".

Well that smile does not need necisarily be on her face.

[TerraPrime]

The supple art of weaving a tale has never before been mastered as adroitly as Mr. Goodkind (Blessed Be His Name) has. The juxtaposition of a scene as heart-warming as the ending of Free Willy with the slaughter of thousands of soldiers, the bloodiness of which rivals the ending of Scarface, stands as testimony to the literary instinct so honed to perfection that it draws blood from anyone who dares to read the exulting examples of extraordinary exposition expressed in the Sword of Truth series. Truly, Mr. Goodkind's (Blessed Be His Name) talent is unmatched by anyone, alive or dead.

This is not just a fiction, my friends, and let us not be gentle with desecrators who would classify Mr. Goodkind's (Blessed Be His Name) as mere fiction. Catch22 is fiction. Of mice and man is fiction. The Illiad is fiction. But this, this Sword of Truth, is no fiction.

Those who seek joy in destroying the magnificent work of others out of spite and small-minded jealousy by describing the seminal work of human literacy as mere fictions are to be pitied, reviled, and shunned. They know not what greatness is and in their blindness seek to destroy what is truly unique in our world. If we should feel the need to feel sorry for these misguided souls, let us remember that the Holy Scripture of the Yeard told us that "Anarchy is robed in tolerance and understanding." Those who possess moral clarity do not wear robes - we wear outfits (black only). We, the Chosen Ones, who are unworthy of the revelations in the works of Mr. Goodkind (Blessed Be His Name), but who nevertheless receive such blessings, against our will, must live up to His great expectations of us in upholding our moral clarity and denounce, in terms that can leave no doubt, the subjectivist shenanigan of classifying the Sword of Truth series as fiction. No, the Sword of Truth is Teh Trueth! It said so in the name, did it not? That so many people can mistake it for fiction is only proof of how morally degenerate our society has become. The brood of feral children we have raised is so blind to the purity of human spirit that they cannot even see Truth when it explains itself to them.

Brethrens, this is a call to arms. We must do our best to suppress the subjectivist libel of calling the Sword of Truth series fiction. If we do not stop this evil, then we are just as culpable. If you read the tripe of classifying the Sword of Truth as fiction, then you are guilty of murder, and rape, and murder before rape, and murder after rape, and murder and rape together. You know what to do - practice your round-house kicks, let your thing rise, and let's dance with death through the subjectivists.

[Agulla]

I can already picture the last battle in my mind.

Richard danced with death but around him the tide of the battle turned against him. Already his valiant midlanders were losing ground to the evil forces of the Order; cruel men that this time were armed with something more than hatred for moral clarity. Which explained the fact that Richard was losing and not even his endless reserves of hate and rage could do anything about it. There were voices around him but he couldn't understand them, he was lost in his dance with death, killing all around, they seemed to be crying in some forgotten world far away:

"The Gars are coming! The Gars are coming!"

For a moment more Richard's thought hovered. "Tolkien!" it said. "But no! That came in a fantasy tale and this is no Fantasy. This is my tale and this tale uses elements related to fantasy to explain things that are important and not just escapist Altruism."

[mystar]

Finally, you are very keen to puff yourself and your 'contacts' with Terry Goodkind, within the industry, etc. Frankly, I am sceptical. Are you seriously telling me that Mr Goodkind doesn't browse the internet? That his only connection with the 'net is you and one other person? He doesn't read news or sports pages, book holidays, or shop online? I doubt that's true. You're overstating, and that undermines your credibility.

You're also overstating your 'contacts', I suspect. People who are really important, people who really have the kind of 'contacts in the industry' you claim to have don't need to brag about it.

Be as "scepticl" (btw it is spelled Skeptical when correcting someone else’s spelling error please at least try to make sure your are correct as well...kinda makes you look stupid don't ya think?) unless of course YOU are the only one allowed to make errors, if that is the case then just learn how to spell anyway eh! As you wish, that doesn't change the facts. Not everyone has or uses the Internet. Goodkind has no Internet and doesn't go on the web/net at all. Like it or not the world doesn't bow to you or the Internet.

That you find it Skeptical has no bearing on the truth of the matter.

As for "putting out my contacts" etc... Get a grip dude; this is the first time I’ve so stated that. I've stated in the past I've a few contacts within the publishing world, but never any names. So what? Again I could care less what you believe or don't. The truth is still the winning factor, and you don't have it on your side.

[TerraPrime]

Be as "scepticl" (btw it is spelled Skeptical when correcting someone else’s spelling error please at least try to make sure your are correct as well...kinda makes you look stupid don't ya think?) unless of course YOU are the only one allowed to make errors, if that is the case then just learn how to spell anyway eh!

The word "sceptical" is a British variant of the word "skeptical." You can find that information from the dictionary.com site or the on-line Merriam-Webster site. To quote the Merriam-Webster site, in case you're too lazy to click:

Main Entry: scep·tic, scep·ti·cal, scep·ti·cism

chiefly British variant of SKEPTIC, SKEPTICAL, SKEPTICISM

If you want to refute someone's criticism on your spelling by pointing out that they are spelling incorrectly, it might work better if:

1. You don't misspell the word in question, like "scepticl"

and

2. You make sure that the word "sceptical" is a misspelling in the first place.

Otherwise, you will just come across as sloppy in your argument and unaware of spelling variations in non-U.S. countries. Just in case you're wondering, no, mormont is not from the United States.

Hope this helped.

[Hark]

[Mme Erzulie]

Oh, One thing that stymies me....and keeps me laughing my ass off is Jordan and his lack of... Ok' I'll forgo the insults for this post...

Ooh, I bet those were good ones, too.

…(it’s a guy thing, and for that matter no thing alive would fail to rise to the true strength of the female character)

Come on!!! Am I the only one catching these? This is pure gold! MyStar, you're brightening the day of many a poster here. Keep it up!

Be as "scepticl" (btw it is spelled Skeptical when correcting someone else’s spelling error please at least try to make sure your are correct as well...kinda makes you look stupid don't ya think?) unless of course YOU are the only one allowed to make errors, if that is the case then just learn how to spell anyway eh! As you wish, that doesn't change the facts.

Huh? If we take out the parentheses, your sentence looks like this:

Be as "scepticl" unless of course YOU are the only one allowed to make errors, if that is the case then just learn how to spell anyway eh!

Mind-boggling. I guess it's just us missing the point again, huh? But this feeds my growing suspicion that you are, in fact, Goodkind. You have the same way of "destroying" your opponents, similar (and equally entertaining) style of writing, and the same disdain for anyone dissident.

[mormont]

Be as "scepticl" (btw it is spelled Skeptical when correcting someone else’s spelling error please at least try to make sure your are correct as well...kinda makes you look stupid don't ya think?) unless of course YOU are the only one allowed to make errors, if that is the case then just learn how to spell anyway eh!

As others have already pointed out, the word is spelled correctly, thanks. I'm glad to say that only one of us looks stupid right now.

As you wish, that doesn't change the facts. Not everyone has or uses the Internet. Goodkind has no Internet and doesn't go on the web/net at all. Like it or not the world doesn't bow to you or the Internet.

See, there's another thing I'm curious about: why do you always refer to him as 'Goodkind'? It's a bit weird.

If you were personally close with him, I'd expect 'Terry', unless of course you felt that using that on an internet forum was a bit pretentious and sounded like name-dropping, which I'm sure is a big worry for you.

In which case I might expect 'Mr Goodkind' or something: but just 'Goodkind' sounds kind of, well, disrespectful.

That you find it Skeptical has no bearing on the truth of the matter.

No, I am sceptical. I find it doubtful. Apparently you can spell it (in one variant only) but you can't use it in a sentence.

So, Terry Goodkind has multiple computers (I've seen the pic of his study) on which he writes many novels. But for some reason he hasn't ever mastered the art of turning on the Internet Explorer software that comes with them? Something even George (mind if I name-drop? I know George reasonably well ) manages despite the fact that he avoids this forum and has people to set up and maintain his web page and blog?

OK, I'll take your word for that. *shrugs* But it does seem unlikely.

As for "putting out my contacts" etc... Get a grip dude; this is the first time I’ve so stated that. I've stated in the past I've a few contacts within the publishing world, but never any names. So what? Again I could care less what you believe or don't. The truth is still the winning factor, and you don't have it on your side.

You frequently allude to your 'contacts', for example when you claim to 'know' George's attitude towards criticism of Mr Goodkind. And this is verifiably NOT the first time you have outright stated that you have 'contacts' in the industry on this board.

The fact that you don't name names could mean many things: it could, for example, mean that you are overstating again, and rather than 'contacts' you have people you've emailed a couple of times. It might help to obscure that if you don't name names. Just one possible interpretation.

The thing about truth, of course, is that it is verifiable. You don't need to assert it, it just is. People can see it for themselves. I know that certain boarders here have contacts in the industry, for example, because I have seen those people comment on those boarder's blogs, etc.

Your posts, however, are long on assertions and short on proof. On any of the issues on which we disagree, not just this one.

[Moosicus]

As for "putting out my contacts" etc... Get a grip dude; this is the first time I’ve so stated that. I've stated in the past I've a few contacts within the publishing world, but never any names. So what? Again I could care less what you believe or don't. The truth is still the winning factor, and you don't have it on your side.

Um, maybe the rereads of Goodkind for the QotD have fucked my brain, but are you saying this is the first time you've done something that you've done before? Am I getting that right? This is the first time you've said it, but you've said it before? So you're saying it again? Huh? Wha?!?!

*Note to self, don't ever read Terry and mystar in the same day. Too much of a brainfuck.

[Zadok]

I'd like to believe that mystar is just winding people up today. I mean, from the misspelling of a correction of a "misspelling", the contradictory statements a sentence apart and the ignoring of posts he's quoted it's just a bit much.

If he is in fact doing this on purpose, I don't understand his motive, as supposedly he wants to put an end to these threads. Yet here he is supplying more and more material to keep it going. Maybe it's all part of a diabolical plan to keep people talking about Goodkind. Oh so "metta"

[Werthead]

Pat has continued his tireless researching into Goodkind sales figures, with interesting results:

CHAINFIRE turned out to be the most popular TG book on the NYT list. Now, since this guy's supposed to have "contacts," how about Publishers Weekly figures? A while back, they printed an article with the bestselling novels of the year 2005. That's where we learned that RJ sold over 500, 000 copies of KoD and GRRM sold over 250, 000 copies of AFfC. I remember listing all the F/SF titles included on the list. In the top 100, Terry Brooks' latest was the last book on the list, with about 107, 000 copies sold (if I remember correctly). Hmmm, no sign of Terry Goodkind, regardless of the fact that CHAINFIRE was his bestselling novel in hardcover.

Tor Books (Tom Doherty included) have absolutely no idea how much TG sells worldwide because they have absolutely no ties with the other publishers that release his books in different languages. They have access to the information pertaining to the North American sales and that's it.

I mean no disrespect to this guy Mystar, but his bucket doesn't hold any water. Be a fan -- I have no problem with that. But suffering from delusions of grandeur is another thing entirely.

I've been following fantasy stats and sales for more than 15 years, and there is no way Goodkind has sold more than 50 million copies. Imagine, that would means he, by himself, has outsold both Robert Jordan and Terry Pratchett combined*! And with all of 9 books, to boot!

*Respects to Pat, but Pratchett's sales by themselves would even exceed the 50 million claim, if it were true. Throw in the fact that Jordan is Tor's biggest-selling author, by far, meaning he has sold more copies than Goodkind but never has claimed such vast figures, and you have to come to the conclusion that Mystar is lying through his back teeth. But why? Eleven million is a hell of a lot of books. It's nearly three times what Martin has sold. Its more than ten times what Bakker and Erikson have sold. It's what Dune, the biggest-selling SF series of all time, has sold. If he wants to point out Goodkind's immense popularity there is more than enough evidence to do so. Multiplying it fivefold is just...daft.

[Seventh Pup]

You guys are awesome. The "Skeptical" argument may be the best early birthday present I have ever received. I have not laughed this hard in a long time.

[Ran]

Over 400 posts, time to close this one down.