No throwing tomatoes please....but I am from .Net

[Angalin]

I know I've said this before, but I just don't get why evil couldn't have been ended by the use of a good, sharp cleaver. ;)

[RWHamel]

Well thanks peeps for settling that. It was better than a kick in the jaw, unless of course I was an evil little girl.

[addicted]

LMAO...I can't reply quick enough!

To the most prevalent: And I found myself biased against Martin and Jordan. I didn't like witnessing prejudice on my behalf due to some...unfortunate exposure to some of his fans. There was a contradiction...lol....that didn't fit. When Moose, Wert, and Myshkin weren't bashing I saw intelligence and thought provoking posts. Nothing necessarily changed my mind, but thought provoking none-the-less.

I am *not* Mystar and will not necessarily defend every word of Terry's as gospel- I have been known to concede a point or two. While I do know Terry (was one of the one's invited to his home) I am not nearly as personally involved (take that how it is meant please!) as Mystar is.

If anyone wants to move this to "literature", fine by me; I call a spade a spade :P

As far as the chicken thing...if you [i]really[/i] want me to reply....

I am of the belief that this "war" for lack of a better term, has snowballed beyond comprehension. I know it is "fun" and more of a silly distraction than anything else.

To answer the question about our "camp":

From time to time there have been....lets call them "frustration threads" but no, we do not have the ongoing saga that you folks have. Once the trolling has been temporarily squashed the chatter dies out instantly. For the record: I am not one for banning- demanding respect, yes...but just presenting a different opinion is not a reason to ban...but hey, I am no mod. In defense of the * I can't fathom his frustration...and from my understanding things got pretty ugly on both sides of the fence.

If it would help, I will further progress my vulnerability and post my essay- it may give you perspective of where I am coming from and coincidentally addresses some of the conflict issues.

[Myshkin]

Hi addicted.

[dornish prince]

this thread degenerating into a series of "in jokes" has totally defeated it's purpose. IMO, the OP offered to answer questions in regards to all things SoT. the term "olive branch" was used. why don't we try to act in earnest instead of regurgitating sanctimonious platitudes?

[RWHamel]

I hope you stick around addicted, because it will give us some balanced insight into the TV show. :)

[addicted]

Hey Mysh! :D

and TY dornish- I *do* have a fairly thick skin and I*did* know what I was getting myself into, however it will defeat my purpose here.

[RWHamel]

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1399470' date='Jun 15 2008, 14.15']Hi addicted.[/quote]

Ah Myshkin, your seeds have borne fruit.

spelling

[IheartTesla]

[quote name='BJ Penn' post='1399400' date='Jun 15 2008, 14.36']What, we have people on this board that purposely go to the Goodkind site just to mock his fans and instigate shit? That's kinda pathetic on our part, if that's true, and I could easily see the inevitable backlash of Goodkind fans coming over here to troll in retribution.[/quote]

Hey, 30 threads bashing him on this board cant be enough to sate anyone's appetite for mockery.

Anyway, the only TG I've read is the short story he wrote in [i]Legends I[/i]. I dont remember much of it, but it was part of a big anthology and there was enough meat in the other stories for me not to pay much attention to his offering.

[addicted]

This is the essay I submitted for the contest .Net had a while back- I have posted it in its entirety; as noted my endnotes will not translate so if anyone wants my reference notes please PM me.

If this strikes up points of interest or you are just interested in asking questions- I offer it as insight to where I am coming from......I remain exposed.


The Sword of Truth Series: A Current Mythology
-Amy ***** (a.k.a. addicted)




A current mythology is a contradiction in terms, or is it? Mythology is commonly known to be ancient, fanciful tales and legends. They are entertaining as well as used to teach. We are told fables, fairytales, and other forms of mythology growing up; they come in the form of bed-time stories, anecdotes, parables, and lessons. There is a certain dynamic to mythology that is not regularly understood: that it is also an ideology and/or philosophy.1
Mythology has endured time and been carried through generations for a reason. Mythology helps define how we interpret and interact with the world around us. It helps identify our “inner” and “outer” worlds. The Sword of Truth series goes beyond “current mythology”; it not only presents a classic myth in all its glory but is accompanied with the tools to help interpret and understand how it can be integrated into our daily lives.

The purpose of mythology is to give insight to the mysteries of the world and to help define our place in it. The message can be entertaining or horrifying. Mythology is epic, giving one the visualization on a grand scale of what has come before and the potentiality for the future. It is both a social and an individual interpretation of life at its core. The terms truth and myth generally contradict each other. While considered fictitious, mythology is created from the abstract truths of a time and cultural belief. It is not necessarily about what specifically happened but how one reacts and why. Was Homer trying to document the victory of battle over a cyclops in The Odyssey? Or trying to demonstrate the driving force of a man facing over-whelming odds and/or the cunning intelligence of Odysseus/Ulysses? It demonstrates the internal development and journey of man’s interactions with the world. Mythology itself is the elaborate interpretation and documentation of an era’s truths. The “myth” gives form to the unknown, while “mythology” depicts the interaction. It is a creative medium that is utilized to document and pass on the qualities of life as the originator sees it. What is considered mythological to us was reality to them (especially concerning Greek mythology). The Greeks identified with Homer’s poetry to such an extent that the myths had direct influence on their culture.2 These abstracts, like driving force and intelligence, are described and not defined for a reason. The description exemplifies an ideal. As ideals evolve, it stands to reason, so will mythology.

Throughout time, mythology has typically been used as an entertaining way to teach ideals. The themes themselves are timeless because they are about humanity, our mortality, our world, our celestial skies, and through it all, our reactions to them. It deals with interpretations of beliefs, the symbolic and allegorical meanings of things, and cultural traditions. We are surrounded by myth and mythology in our daily lives. It is the basis for religions, superstitions, sciences, governments, and utopian societies, agreement or skepticism being the only determining factor. Just as our viewpoints, knowledge, and beliefs change and evolve, so does mythology. Two prominent examples of mythology that have withstood the tests of time and social acceptance are Camelot (government) and Atlantis (Utopia). These two examples are based strictly in ideology. The continued social acceptance of the interpretation gives the myth its “staying power.” Who wouldn’t want the “perfect government” or “utopian society”? It is still a current ideal, so it has been constantly revisited throughout the ages.

Mythology continues through generations with the use of language, traditions, symbols, literature, art, cinema/theater, and ultimately, laws. They give us constant recognition of the wonders of existence and use the abstracts in life and metaphors to detail it. Examples of such include religion, icons, cinematic heroics, and even court protocol. Speaking a religious service in “the old tongue” depicts a tradition. The “all seeing eye”above the pyramid on our own dollar bill is a continual reminder through an icon.. A judge’s robe is a symbolic continuation epitomized. The social laws we accept and live by are based off the biblical Ten Commandments. Our periodic table of known elements continues myth by naming the elements after Greek/Roman gods. Our planets are named from the same. The days of the week are also derived from the god’s names, Greek then Roman, and finally Norse.

These stories and traditions have defined and continue to define our individual and social perceptions. They are our first grasp at our potentiality and/or our apocalyptical demise. They provide clear-cut examples of love, courage, bravery, free will, independence, and a moral code (humanity at its best). They also demonstrate visually the evil of the world, hate, slavery, greed, retribution, corruption, and the desire for immortality (humanity at its worst). These abstracts are then quantified by the consequences, judgments, and outcome of the story. Mythology is also ambiguous with the solutions. While it epically provides the “what” and the “why,” the “how” is not so easily ascertained. The lessons and morals can be applied to life or denied. Bottom line, it is an individual choice and opinion. Free will at its best.

Mythology itself contains additional classifications such as the mononmyth3 (the adventure of a hero) and mythopoeia4 (myth-making), which are terms made popular by Joseph Campbell and J. R .R Tolkien, respectively. Beyond the examples of Tolkien or C. S. Lewis, mythology can be seen as recently as George Lucas’ Star Wars Saga.5 The difference with “current mythology” is that it is intentionally fictitious. The made-up world depicted mostly through fantasy and science fiction is one of the few places that mythology can survive in today’s world. There has also been a significant shift from the collective to the individual scope. The big mysteries of the world have since been explained; the internal mysteries continue to be enigmatic. That, however, does not negate that its ideals are based in truth. It is still true social concepts elaborately depicted but placed in these fanciful worlds. It is the artist’s choice of metaphors and the style in which it’s presented that defines their particular point of view.


According to Joseph Campbell, a renowned teacher/student of mythology, there are three main categories and seventeen elements to a classic monomyth.6 Within the series, we see the majority, if not all, of these elements and in most of the examples, more than once. The story is written in the manner that you actually read of more than one “hero’s adventure.” This series is not limited to one ultimate hero. It is written with both main and supporting characters that are not only on an adventure, they are each on a journey. The journey for the truth that is themselves. There are the two main characters/heroes of Richard and Kahlan, both reexamining their perceptions individually and socially, questing for ideals, and protecting freedoms. Additionally, there are obvious acts of heroism and “soul-searching,” so to speak, from the supporting characters: Denna, Cara, Nicci, Ann, Nathan, Jennsen, Rachel, (hell, even the minor characters of Tom and Friedrich!), have all had transformations of their inner truths. This mythopoeic world provides the medium for Goodkind to examine how the smallest of choices and decisions affect the delicate balance of our inner and outer worlds.

Mythology also contains one or more of the following: a hero, a challenge or quest, trials and test of character/ moral code, a confrontation with death, temptation, atonement, apotheosis, a reward, and epic depictions. While the series contains all of the qualities of a myth, it is also placed in a mythopoeic world that could easily be visualized as our own in a different time. Interwoven in this mythology are several strong examples of the monomyth: “the adventure of the hero.” These traits can be found in most fantasy fiction on the bookstore shelves, however, not all can convey the abstracts in life as eloquently and detailed as the Sword of Truth series. That which makes Goodkind’s series actual mythology versus just myth is the philosophy. The series contains all of the myth’s basic elements and more. Within its pages, you are not only witness to the adventure of a hero in a fanciful world, experiencing his/her journey to a given ideology, you are also given the keys to applying that ideology to your daily life. It goes beyond mere symbolism and vague interpretation. This is one quality, in my opinion, where Goodkind supersedes his predecessors, in which he provides the written concepts to guide you. Goodkind not only gives you the “what” and the “why” but also the tools to find the “how” for yourself.

The lessons are as old as time: the world around us and how we fit in it. Our “outer world” perceptions are based in knowledge, experiences, and environment. Our “inner world” is a make up of our emotions and reactions to the outer world .7 The myth lies in-between, helping create a balance. An individual’s reaction to the myth defines their philosophy. I offer this modest example: How did you react to the myth of “Jack and the Beanstalk”? Was Jack cunning or showing gullibility? Should his mother/brother have trusted him, or did they have cause to doubt? Simply put, mythology can conjure the toughest of life’s questions. The Sword of Truth series offers these tough questions on a multiple scale. It stays true to mythology with the abstract questions and ambiguous answers, however, it generously offers a written, detailed formula in which one can base their own decisions through logic and reason, a.k.a. The Wizard’s Rules. The rules are axioms for applying objectivity and reason.

What stands out the most, to me, is not that all of the “elements” are covered within the series, but in how the author utilizes these elements to convey an understanding of the abstractions in life. The series demonstrates that everyone truly can be a hero, whether on a grand scale or small and even if they fail a time or two. The characters’ failures are as important as their achievements. It is written, in my opinion, so that you are privy to the actual thought processes of these characters. Even the villains are written in an identifying manner. While you may not agree with the cause or concept, you understand their motivations; you are cognizant of their ideals and their commitment to its fruition. Part of their appeal is that their imperfections humanize these magical beings, both good and evil.

The other main difference with this mythology is that while the characters are caught up in a magical world, with magical weapons and awesome powers, the heroes rarely, if ever, use a magical solution to solve their given dilemmas. The lessons, solutions, and accomplishments are made through the use of intellect, reason, and logic. The wizard’s rules reinforce these concepts. As with all mythology, the character’s appeal also stems from their desires and ideals being in line with our own. The desire for love, the need for freedom, the perseverance to keep going, the unwavering commitment to one’s ideals, recognition of self worth, and that evil is based too on an ideal and enacted with conviction are just a few of the current, real life abstractions we deal with daily that are referred to within the novels. The identification is individual; the concepts are both social and individual. The wizard rules are given as guidelines to us for confronting our own “personal myths.” Since the story presents that solutions are attainable through intellect, even on such an epic level, it effectively demonstrates that our individual solutions are attainable through the same. The rules act as a catalyst of reason to our decision making. This is why so many that love the series ask “What would Richard do?” in a given situation. It helps remind us to approach the circumstance with logic and reason: to first identify, see the action and reaction, to properly place emotions, and to “practice what you preach” are all variants of wizard’s rules and could be considered “common-sense” which are risky to incorporate, especially in a mythology, for fear of impeding abstract and logical thinking.8 The parallel is uncanny; to identify (Rule # 9- a contradiction can not exist in reality), action and reaction- (Rule #2- the greatest harm can result from the best intentions), properly place emotion (Rule #3- Passion rules reason), practice what you preach (Rule #5-Mind what people do , not only what they say, for deeds will betray a lie) the wizard’s rules are a “common sense” logical application to life. However, to quote another myth, wizard rules are ‘more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.’ 9 It is a matter of individual choice (which is after all, the overall message of the series) as to which resonate with your inner world, which to identify with or deny, and finally, which to apply to your outer world. The rules are a reminder to the characters and to the readers, based on an objective lifestyle, of how to decide our actions and reactions to a given scenario. They exemplify a philosophy.

Philosophy and mythology both stand the trial of time. Mythology conjures the ideals of the day, while philosophy is how we interact with and apply them. They are eternal and world-wide. Mythologies are stories from our past, our present, and our future. Most every culture has mythology in the form of stories. A “timeless epic” that conveys at least part of a societies lessons and understanding, “life’s wisdom.”10 The individual interpretation is also a source of “timeless” controversy. This also holds true for the series. A love-hate relationship accompanies all thought provoking mythology, because of its philosophy. The definition I chose is the one that specifically addresses this controversy and supports my argument that the Sword of Truth series is current mythology.

The definition of mythology as ideology accomplishes both tasks. The others (interpretation, symbolic, allegorical meanings, fable) are all applicable, as previously discussed, but this one resonated with me. The series identifies and frankly, reminds me of my own ideology. It is an ideal; it reflects a philosophy and a way of thinking, presented by one man and offered to the masses. It allows you to contemplate as well as identify and comprehend your inner world and its relationship to the outer world. It is an opinion, in this case, Goodkind’s opinion. It is individual life preferences, choices, and decisions, a view of life and how it should be lived. It can quantify or collide with your given beliefs and ideals. It provides a medium to explore the duality in us all. “These ever-recurring symbols within the myth of the hero possess outer and inner meanings, positive and negative powers, material and spiritual aspects that are both creative and destructive. Images that mirror outer phenomena and inner vision-event and dream- merge.”11 As with all mythology, we take what we need and leave the rest-- it is not forced; it is offered as one option among many.

Joseph Campbell wrote extensively about mythology, “When a story is in your mind, you see its relevance to something happening in your own life.” 12 That is the true power behind the myth for me, its relevance and application of ideals. The Sword of Truth series, for me, conveys a message that everyone on this earth is entitled to happiness and joy (as long as it is not taken at the price of another rights) and that everyone can find their inner hero. The story inspired me, reminding me “not to settle” but instead to “always strive for the best.” The epic novels were literally a muse for my inner world. Ideology has always accompanied mythology; it is demonstrated through the heroes. Richard and Kahlan, among others, reminded me of my love for learning and gave inspiration. The story not only helped me quantify, but helped me qualify life as I want it. It was a catalyst for me to live my life, with logic and reason as my deciders, instead of relying on passions and fears. For those of us that love the series, it is with us daily. It gives perspective and identifies the code which we live by. There are other fans that just love it for the story. On the other side of the spectrum, there are those that hate the philosophy and therefore the author of the interpretation. The series is the basis for an objective lifestyle, to which some are not accustomed to nor have the desire to obtain. As stated before, it is an individual decision: to accept or deny, to apply or ignore it. I choose to accept this mythology, not as facts, but as epic examples. I apply the wisdom given in my daily life and choices. I have seen the relevance to the world around me, but that is me.

My personal opinion aside, The Sword of Truth series successfully incorporates all aspects of mythology. The series integrates the lessons of mythology, the epic status of mythopoeia, and demonstrates several monomyths. The abstracts within the series are those of love, trust, loyalty, independence, judgment, commitment, torture, and freedoms, both socially and individually to name but a few. Interpretation of good and/or evil is the eternal question with reason and logic being the determining factors. It is both socially and individually compelling. It is about humanity and our individual duality. It asks the hard questions and provides a formula for you to determine your own, individual answers. It is entertaining, thought provoking, and above all that, a wonderful love story that is not gender biased. The symbolism and foresight are more than effective. The accompanied wizard rules/ guidelines are an exemplified version of “life’s wisdom” to live your life and interpret the world around you, if you so choose. It is mythology at its best, only current.


“Knowledge is the destination, truth is the journey.” - Terry Goodkind




Endnotes: Will not copy- available upon request of PM

[Angalin]

Oh dear. In order to properly respond to Amy's essay, I'm going to have to read WFR. :/

[Lord of Oop North]

Tairy is supporting Not-Euro Turkish Footballing Squad! Down with him! Into the Pit of Woe!!!

[Pebble thats Stubby]

Addicted don't mind LooN, he's just being a bitter looser.



I can tell you passonity enjoy SoT, and I am not gonna argue that you shouldn't. It seems to me (apart from the Mythology and Philosopy in the books, I can't really comment their cos 1, I have not read them, 2 discussing Philosphy makes my head hut.) the main points you really like are the portail of all the Charaters and being able to understand what motivates them. to Identify and get inside their heads. As well as the exploration of all aspects of Humanity, the good with the Evil and all shades of grey inbetween.

If I am right then you truely will enjoy Martins "A Game of Thrones" They may be very different in writing sytle. But his charaters and personalities are fully explored. Everybody has charater flaws and differeing strenghts and weeknesses. and everyone has their own agenda.

There are lots of personal trials and hardships as well as those faced by many people. the Actions of one person can have serrious unforseen repricussions on a grand scale. Above all is the books have a realisum that I have found lacking in a lot of works.

It would truely be a shame if you did not read Martins work because of a few crazed fans, that can take in-joke too far. Yes on this board Goodkind Bashing is a hobby of a few. I would hope that it would not stop you reading any book.

[Inigima]

We're still making fun of Goodkind? Really? I'd sort of hoped we'd moved on to new, original thoughts.

Hi addicted. Welcome to the board.

[Angalin]

Following up Ms Ikea P's comment (edit: which I agree with, btw): GRRM doesn't present his characters as part of the creation of a new mythology. IMO, he uses some archetypes, but the characters are not restricted by those archetypal inspirations. They are too human to be mythical, 'fyouknowotImean.

[drawkcabi]

Hello Addicted welcome!

Maybe I'll surprise you and a few others by admitting that I read the first 7 SOT novels and enjoyed them enough to read them twice. Also, my first read through of SOT was [i]after[/i] my first reading ASOIAF. While both series had different styles, they were both highly enjoyable

I also read your essay and I think it exactly outlines why so many here do not like SOT or TG. From many of the comments I've read, many of the boarders here are extremely adverse to the idea of a fiction writer prioritizing putting forth his opinion in his work ahead of telling a story. Most, if not all, authors have opinions that seep into their work and that's accepted, but with authors like GRRM, Steven Erikson, Scott Lunch, and even R. Scott Bakker (there is a lot philosophy in his work, but you can argue that it is more of an exploration and essential to the story plot than just an author putting forth his opinion) the characters, plot, and world building (essentially the story) come first.

Other things that bother most of the boarders here who have read TG are the violent descriptions of rape and how to some it seems as if TG relishes in those descriptions as there are so many of them. It never really bothered me so much as it always seemed to be the "bad people" doing those things and they always paid for it. Even if they were bad people because of straw man arguments made by TG as the series author, to me, it was just part of the story (a fictional story) and because so, it was acceptable.

TG's writing style. While reading on my own, I never saw it as "bad", but when particular excepts are quoted on threads here, I can see what people mean.

The chicken that was not a chicken...thought it was strange, but if a ring can be the embodiment of evil, why can't a chicken?

The scene where the townspeople getting cut down by Jagang's army while chanting "Give peace a chance" did make me wince.

As I said, I enjoyed SOT at first. However, even before I found this board, I came accross an interview with TG and was somewhat put off about his attitude. He seemed annoyed when people brought up inconsistancies in his work and answered that he didn't find "world building" to be all that important or something to that effect.

Then I read "Naked Empire" and it was like finally seeing what the SOT novels really were. Richard's speeches became increasingly long in each subsequent book but up until Naked Empire, I could tolerate and even enjoy them, but by the 8th book it just became too much. But the worst thing was, in my eyes, Richard became a villian in that book for the first time and since then the entire SOT series was never the same to me.

Something else came into foucs for me too after that point. Thoughout the SOT sereis the idea of personal responsibility runs strong. This is what made me like Richard in the first book and what made me continue reading up until the 8th. However, something always depressed me about Richard's (and through Richard's Terry's) world view. If I were to put forth my own set of "rules", take personal responsibility, would be at the top of the list, but equally important to me is the rule, never be too proud to ask for help. Throughout the SOT series Richard not only does everything on his own, but he seems to detest people who ask for help. That's what depressed me so, it's ok to say "no" when someone asks for help, but to give the idea that it's weak or somehow wrong to even ask didn't sit right with me.

[potsherds]

[quote name='Commodore' post='1399419' date='Jun 15 2008, 20.45']My question (as someone sympathetic to Objectivist philosophy) would be, what aspects of SoT reflect that philosophy in any meaningful way?[/quote]
None of it, as far as I can recall. I DO recall it being mentioned numerous times that plenty of Objectivists actually find Goodkind's work to be a very poor reflection of the philosophy.


Welcome, Addicted. :)

[addicted]

[quote name='Drawkcabi' post='1399692' date='Jun 15 2008, 18.31']Hello Addicted welcome![/quote]

Hello and thank you

[quote]Maybe I'll surprise you and a few others by admitting that I read the first 7 SOT novels and enjoyed them enough to read them twice. Also, my first read through of SOT was [i]after[/i] my first reading ASOIAF. While both series had different styles, they were both highly enjoyable[/quote]

again...thanks for the honesty

[quote]I also read your essay and I think it exactly outlines why so many here do not like SOT or TG. From many of the comments I've read, many of the boarders here are extremely adverse to the idea of a fiction writer prioritizing putting forth his opinion in his work ahead of telling a story. Most, if not all, authors have opinions that seep into their work and that's accepted, but with authors like GRRM, Steven Erikson, Scott Lunch, and even R. Scott Bakker (there is a lot philosophy in his work, but you can argue that it is more of an exploration and essential to the story plot than just an author putting forth his opinion) the characters, plot, and world building (essentially the story) come first.[/quote]

I am new to the fantasy genre. At this point I have read Orson Scott Card, Steven Brust, Anne Bishop, and David Drake. I currently have Terry Brooks on my pending shelf.

While it is clearly obvious that I am a fan of TG's works, I *did* try to write the essay from a neutral POV. By exemplifying the correlations to mythology, I tried to highlight that "the message" or the writer's POV is, at the heart, the true controversy. While some may have issues with his "prose" or "the chicken that wasn't a chicken" it is really the message within that is disagreed with. It stirs conflict with some while simultaneously resonates with others. It is a matter of individual choice. Considering the level of level of disdain it has caused, it strikes a cord on a very personal level.



[quote]Other things that bother most of the boarders here who have read TG are the violent descriptions of rape and how to some it seems as if TG relishes in those descriptions as there are so many of them. It never really bothered me so much as it always seemed to be the "bad people" doing those things and they always paid for it. Even if they were bad people because of straw man arguments made by TG as the series author, to me, it was just part of the story (a fictional story) and because so, it was acceptable.[/quote]

Agreed- This was really the first series I have ever read that had rape in its content described in such detail. However, I too just took it as part of the story, over exemplifying the bad guys. I chalk this up to being one of those snowballs that rolled out of control. From what I gather of the genre violence is no stranger to the fantasy world, nor is rape.

[quote]TG's writing style. While reading on my own, I never saw it as "bad", but when particular excepts are quoted on threads here, I can see what people mean.[/quote]

LOL well, any excerpt out of context can be misleading....especially with such vehement redundancy. :P I *can* see other's POV's and why it would put them off to his writings.

[quote]The chicken that was not a chicken...thought it was strange, but if a ring can be the embodiment of evil, why can't a chicken?[/quote] It was kinda silly, but as you say if a ring can...that's the great thing about fiction and magic. ;)

[quote]The scene where the townspeople getting cut down by Jagang's army while chanting "Give peace a chance" did make me wince.[/quote]

Clarify: if I am thinking it is the same scene: It was the Bandakarians lead by Richard that cut down the chanters. The chanters had been brain washed (with their history and Jangang's army). The IO learned their ignorance and fears and used that to defend against Richard. The IO orchestrated the "Human wall" but all any can remember is that Richard cut them down. Nary a mention to the point that he tried to offer them a choice, even had their own loved ones speak of their 'new' truths, but I guess the devil you do know is better than the devil you don't.
In essence these folks were of the mind that "nothing is real" as long as you believed it wasn't. Reality was smacking them in the face and they(chanters) were offering more ammo.

[quote]As I said, I enjoyed SOT at first. However, even before I found this board, I came accross an interview with TG and was somewhat put off about his attitude. He seemed annoyed when people brought up inconsistancies in his work and answered that he didn't find "world building" to be all that important or something to that effect.[/quote]

Luckily I have met the man behind the excerpted interviews, and have come to see that what some see as arrogance is what seemingly to me was confidence. I do agree that he can come off as arrogant when you haven't had the chance to witness the "follow up"- I think it would be hard for anyone to clarify their plethora of viewpoints in a series of 30 second sound bites.

[quote]Then I read "Naked Empire" and it was like finally seeing what the SOT novels really were. Richard's speeches became increasingly long in each subsequent book but up until Naked Empire, I could tolerate and even enjoy them, but by the 8th book it just became too much. But the worst thing was, in my eyes, Richard became a villian in that book for the first time and since then the entire SOT series was never the same to me.[/quote]

I am the first to agree that some of the speeches can be long, redundant, and over simplified. BUT I have also sacrificed myself to a 62 page speech "This is John Galt speaking" from [u]Atlas Shrugged [/u] :P I guess I am a glutton for punishment. :P

The redundancy I address due to the attempt at being "stand alone novels" whereas the author needs to catch up those that have not tread here before. Some of it also address the likes of me that may not catch on the first three times so they need it shoved in their face once again for it to finally hit home. :P

[quote]Something else came into foucs for me too after that point. Thoughout the SOT sereis the idea of personal responsibility runs strong. This is what made me like Richard in the first book and what made me continue reading up until the 8th. However, something always depressed me about Richard's (and through Richard's Terry's) world view. If I were to put forth my own set of "rules", take personal responsibility, would be at the top of the list, but equally important to me is the rule, never be too proud to ask for help. Throughout the SOT series Richard not only does everything on his own, but he seems to detest people who ask for help. That's what depressed me so, it's ok to say "no" when someone asks for help, but to give the idea that it's weak or somehow wrong to even ask didn't sit right with me.[/quote]

This is part of O'ism I have yet to agree with. I come from a very family oriented background and know that this world is much bigger than I am, and so are the daily strifes. I know that sometimes you have to ask for help and it should not be belittling to do so. I don't know if I can pin point to what you are referring, but I understand (I think) where you are coming from.

IMHO- This does stem from an axiom of O'ism. Something along the lines of receive what you achieve (paraphrasing here). Where Ayn Rand depicted worse case scenario, TG apparently treated it with contempt (though again, I can not pinpoint your ex.)

I thank you for you taking the time to reply and raising specifics, I hope my opinions offered some insight. :)

[delete this account pls]

Welcome addicted. I wouldn't worry too much about the reception you'll get. This is a huge board and I'd hazard a guess that most of us haven't even read any Goodkind before.

ETA; Also - what dp said. mango.

[AverageGuy]

[quote name='Commodore' post='1399419' date='Jun 15 2008, 14.45']My question (as someone sympathetic to Objectivist philosophy) would be, what aspects of SoT reflect that philosophy in any meaningful way?[/quote]
A devil figure and a creator figure exist. That actually plays a big part in driving the narrative, especially since anything to do with magic comes from one or the other (more or less - Subtractive magic comes from the Underworld, but isn't necessarily the Keeper/devil's despite generally being portrayed that way until Richard gains the ability to use it, while magic is the Creator's Gift). So religious truth is one point Objectivism would deny but the Sword of Truth does not. It's been awhile since I've read the books, but since Goodkind addresses a lot of modern issues, I'm sure it's not a 1:1 thing.

I read the books back in the day. After Naked Empire came out, I quit. I'd originally intended to go on, but between Pillars and Empire, I just lost interest. Presently, I disagree with several points of Objectivism and, looking back at the books, don't enjoy the writing the way I used to, but I really don't care if other people enjoy them. Goodkind has managed to make some offputting comments in regards to the fantasy genre, but when you remember he hasn't read much fantasy, it's not so bad.