Tomatoes 2

[Jaxom 1974]

I'm starting a new one to pre-empt the inevitable closure of the previous thread. This will be here when we need it. Which should be any minute the way things are going today. :)

[Kheldar]

From the other thread:

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1416395' date='Jun 26 2008, 12.23']If it is an honest matter between life and death in an actual warzone and you have absolutely no other choice in the matter...justified? No. Necessary? Perhaps. Children can become willing suicide bombers or fighters, especially in war torn countries, sickening as it is.[/quote]
Define "justified", and explain how it doesn't apply to the situation in Vietnam described back a few pages.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1416395' date='Jun 26 2008, 12.23']But that's the problem, Kheldar...Terry Goodkind, the author, is not MEANT to write him as a flawed hero. He does NOT portray him that. He expects us to sympathize and cheer him on. That is a flaw.[/quote]
Yes, it is a flaw. I don't care what TG's intents were...Richard has flaws.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1416395' date='Jun 26 2008, 12.23']You must realize howw this makes Richard remarkably unappealing as a hero we're supposed to root for and to ask ourselves what he would do in a situation?
Richard's actions have the habit of being very morally questionable, and that Goodkind doesn't realize it is an issue.[/quote]

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1416395' date='Jun 26 2008, 12.23']you could cover that up for any of the villains. "It's their right and duty according to their position." Jagang sees the conversion of the New World as his right and duty, for one.[/quote]
Yes. In fact, that's in the books over and over again.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1416395' date='Jun 26 2008, 12.23']Especially when, in Faith of the Fallen, the guy who decides to follow his sword sovereign's orders as is her right and duty, is named a traitor and killed.[/quote]
The sovereign in question is subject to the Mother Confessor.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1416395' date='Jun 26 2008, 12.23']If that's not part of the subject though...?[/quote]
It was a side issue, something brought on by my default reaction to absolute declarations.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1416395' date='Jun 26 2008, 12.23']That they were 'unarmed is immaterial?' That's a bit of a bold statement to make.[/quote]
Yes, it is. Is the guy driving the get-away car any less of a bank robber because he wasn't the one holding the gun?

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1416395' date='Jun 26 2008, 12.23']Yes, they barred Richard's way, but this is absolutely no excuse to begin butchering the unarmed, especially given the disturbing metaphors of this scenario.[/quote]
How does one force his way through a crowd of thousands? They may oppose violence, but they can still grab and hold him, tie him up.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1416395' date='Jun 26 2008, 12.23']Richard could have dealt with the situation at a further date or chosen to force his way through the crowd.[/quote]
No, he couldn't have waited. The only known antidote to the poison in his system was on the other side of the crowd.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1416395' date='Jun 26 2008, 12.23']..instead he does not use morality or reason-but force and violence to convince them. Something that is supposed to be against Goodkind's message[/quote]
He's not trying to convince them...they already had ignored his reasoning. He was only trying to get through them.

Tell me...if I needed dialysis and a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses stood between me and the hospital to prevent me from going in because they believe that most modern medical techniques are morally wrong, would I be justified in physically assaulting them to get past? Presume that they weren't just standing there, but actively trying to prevent my forward motion, trying to hold me down and actually stop me.

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1416443' date='Jun 26 2008, 11.48']How does one force his way through a crowd of thousands? They may oppose violence, but they can still grab and hold him, tie him up.


No, he couldn't have waited. The only known antidote to the poison in his system was on the other side of the crowd.[/quote]

Except there was another way. A way that, based on the simple mechanics of how it works "It was something he needed so he knew it" (paraphrased there), should have been available to him. But then there'd be no parable of how even peace protesters choose a side when they say they don't want to choose sides. The eventual solution reached negates any rationalization, let alone justification, for the act of cutting his way through the protestors to get something he didn't actually need to cut through them to get.

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1416443' date='Jun 26 2008, 11.48']Tell me...if I needed dialysis and a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses stood between me and the hospital to prevent me from going in because they believe that most modern medical techniques are morally wrong, would I be justified in physically assaulting them to get past? Presume that they weren't just standing there, but actively trying to prevent my forward motion, trying to hold me down and actually stop me.[/quote]

Such an odd scenario. In the real world, I'd simply have the police escort me through their lines in acknowledgement of my, and their, rights.

[Kheldar]

[quote name='El Jax Compeador']"I'm poisoned. Without the antidote, I'm going to die." How is that not a need?[/quote]
He knew where the remaining needed antidote was.

[quote name='Eloisa']ETA: Kheldar, I think the line other posters are trying to draw between "rationalise" and "justify" is as follows. Rationalise = it is the rational thing to do, e.g. the Vietnam vet killing a child was rational to do so to save his life. Justify = it is the morally right thing to do, e.g. it is absolutely morally wrong to kill a child - in the Vietnam case it's highly likely that a ten-year-old suicide bomber was brainwashed into it.[/quote]
Ahh....we're using a different definition of "justify"....and "rationalize" for that matter. My thesaurus shows them to be synonymous.

Was the Vietnam Vet's action wrong? Was it morally wrong to kill a child in order to prevent that child from killing numerous others? Or would it have been morally right to allow that child to live long enough to detonate the suicide vest? What is the morally right thing to do in such a case?

We almost need to split this topic off into a different thread...

[Kheldar]

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1416471' date='Jun 26 2008, 12.59']Except there was another way. A way that, based on the simple mechanics of how it works "It was something he needed so he knew it" (paraphrased there), should have been available to him.[/quote]
The need for a solution was already met...knowledge of where to get the antidote. The need to find an alternative solution wouldn't have been enough to trigger the magic.

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1416471' date='Jun 26 2008, 12.59']Such an odd scenario. In the real world, I'd simply have the police escort me through their lines in acknowledgement of my, and their, rights.[/quote]
The JW's grab the police as well.

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1416494' date='Jun 26 2008, 12.09']The need for a solution was already met...knowledge of where to get the antidote. The need to find an alternative solution wouldn't have been enough to trigger the magic.[/quote]

Piss poor writing is not, in and of itself, a defense. If that's where the antidote is and he has to kill to get it, then he should actually get to have the antidote. Having it be destroyed after everything he went through (literally) to get to it to only have magic "solve" the problem is weak and defeats any (which is to say in my opinion none to begin with) strength the message of the actions of going through the peacful protesters might have had.

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1416494' date='Jun 26 2008, 12.09']The JW's grab the police as well.[/quote]

Then I wouldn't think they'd be very good JWs.

[Kheldar]

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1416633' date='Jun 26 2008, 13.58']Piss poor writing is not, in and of itself, a defense.[/quote]
You not liking a story does not make it "piss poor".

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1416633' date='Jun 26 2008, 13.58']If that's where the antidote is and he has to kill to get it, then he should actually get to have the antidote.[/quote]
Why? Wouldn't that just be the same old "villain has cure for hero, taunts hero with cure, hero gets cure, hero kills villain"?

Personally, I like that the bad guy actually dumped the antidote. I just didn't like the ultimate solution.

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1416633' date='Jun 26 2008, 13.58']Having it be destroyed after everything he went through (literally) to get to it to only have magic "solve" the problem is weak and defeats any (which is to say in my opinion none to begin with) strength the message of the actions of going through the peacful protesters might have had.[/quote]
The solution-through-magic doesn't bother me, it was how the magic was used.

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1416633' date='Jun 26 2008, 13.58']Then I wouldn't think they'd be very good JWs.[/quote]
Perhaps not....should the police initiate force? Arrest the JWs?

[Kheldar]

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

"Imagine a painter, a really skilled one. He paints an intricate representation of a factory assembly line. Every detail is meticulously rendered. Every brush stroke is a masterful expression of technical skill. But in the end, it's still a picture of a factory assembly line. I can see where that would appeal to some people, but I wouldn't want it hanging in my house.

Now take a painter who perhaps has less technical skill. He paints a picture of a beautiful mountain landscape. When I see the landscape, it make me want to be there. He emphasizes certain details in such a way that I can lose myself in it and find value in it despite any technical flaws. I can see why the flaws would make it undesirable to some people, but I'm far more likely to take that painting home and enjoy it."

I hope that helps.

[Anatole Kuragin]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1416443' date='Jun 26 2008, 11.48']Tell me...if I needed dialysis and a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses stood between me and the hospital to prevent me from going in because they believe that most modern medical techniques are morally wrong, would I be justified in physically assaulting them to get past? Presume that they weren't just standing there, but actively trying to prevent my forward motion, trying to hold me down and actually stop me.[/quote]

I find this statement misleading and offensive.

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1416695' date='Jun 26 2008, 13.27']You not liking a story does not make it "piss poor".[/quote]

My like or dislike has no bearing here. It truly is piss poor writing.

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1416695' date='Jun 26 2008, 13.27']The solution-through-magic doesn't bother me, it was how the magic was used.[/quote]

I might not have had a problem with the solution-through-magic (despite the poor quality of writing) even with how it was used if it had been used in a logical and believable manner. As a solution, it was a cop out.

[Rakehell]

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

OK, I'm gonna stay away from that, just from lack of knowledge. The only mystery type stuff I've read was most of George Chesbro's Mongo the Magnificent series. (Relatively light-hearted mysteries with a layer of fantasy/sci-fi thrown over the top.)

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

I am impressed. Most people only read the Vlad series, and occasionally the Khaavren Romances. Nice to see you're familiar with his other works.

[quote]Also one is first person narrative and the other is third person.[/quote]

Until you get to Athyra. :)

[quote]Vlad is almost envious, though not, of the lifestyle, Richard was thrust into it with little to no options.[/quote]

I'd say they're both looking for the same type of lifestyle, i.e. living their lives as they wish, generally at home with friends and family around and doing whatever they want, and they're both OK with the idea of killing a whole lot of people in order to get there. Vlad just has a less clear idea of the path he needs to take to get there.

[quote]Vlad has preconceived notions, Richard doesn't.[/quote]

I'll come back to this shortly.

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

OK, now that we've got some common ground, I know a bit more about where I can go with this.

One of the big problems with Goodkind is that he allows his message to override the medium he's chosen to express it. He has these ideas about how to live, about how to treat people, about what is right and wrong and wants to tell people about them and he chose the epic fantasy genre to carry that message to people. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have any respect for that genre. He got a copy of the monomyth, threw a fresh coat of paint on it, and called it good. Epic fantasy fans have read this story before; many, many times, and unless you're particularly skilled they're going to see it as derivative and uninteresting. (Robert Jordan did much the same thing with the Wheel of Time series, he just kept slapping on coats of paint and little bits of glass and gimcracks and gewgaws until it was barely recognizable as a coherent story let alone a derivative of the monomyth. To his credit though, he recognized what he was doing and incorporated it into the story as "another turn of the wheel.")

In doing this, Goodkind is already facing an uphill battle in getting the epic fantasy (that's getting annoying to type out every time, I'm gonna abbreviate it to EF from now on) audience to like his work. When he then layers on his own take on Objectivist philosophy so heavily you have to dig through it to get at the story, it quickly becomes annoying to even bother reading it. He did have some interesting ideas (the concept of the confessors, the sliph, the big bell things that protected the country) but getting to them was like digging through a bag of mixed nuts trying to find just the whole cashews. Some people are OK with doing that, but there's a whole lot of other people who would rather just grab a jar of cashews.

Goodkind writes prescriptively, and in order to do that effectively, your characters need to be relatable and in many cases, his character aren't. They're not really meant to be (or so it seems). Richard and Kahlan are the embodiments of Goodkind's philosophy. They are, in essence, mythological creatures. No one behaves the way they do, but Goodkind makes it clear that he thinks people ought to. This type of writing can be done, but it needs a very light touch and a great deal of skill. Goodkind is so ham-handed with it that it breaks the cardinal rule of fiction writing and draws the reader out of the story in order to consider the reasoning behind it.

You said that Richard has no pre-conceived notions. This is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. No one has no pre-conceived notions about things, excepting maybe someone with brain damage. That's not meant to be insulting, it's the simple state of human experience to draw upon what you have experienced in order to predict future events. You can work against it and try to ignore your own preconceptions, but they're still there. The lack of preconceptions dehumanizes Richard, makes him less relatable and reinforces the heavy-handedness of the philosophy.

All of this feeds into why I, and many others, dislike these books. The protagonists act in ways that make them seem at least emotionally detached and are bordering on sociopathic, and yet they are held up as heroes by all of the other sympathetic characters in the books. Vlad is also pretty much a sociopath, yet the way he's presented is very different. There is a small group of people who genuinely care about him, but there's a larger group that just respects him and much, much larger group who are scared to death of him. And the biggest difference between the two; Vlad changes and grows. As you read through the books you can see him changing, see his attitude about what he does becoming different, see him questioning his own motivations and searching for understanding within himself. Richard is simply Richard; past. present, future all the same. He feels perfectly justified in everything he does and gives no more though to his past actions than he would to the death of a mayfly.

And lastly, for now, on a totally subjective note; the reason a lot of people don't like Richard is because he's not cool. People will accept a lot of reprehensible behavior from the protagonist of a story as long as he's cool. Batman is cool, Martin Riggs is cool, Riddick is cool, Vlad Taltos is cool. Richard? Not so much. :)

[Kheldar]

[quote name='Anatole Kuragin' post='1416732' date='Jun 26 2008, 14.39']I find this statement misleading and offensive.[/quote]
Thanks for sharing. Would you like to expound on that?

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1416749' date='Jun 26 2008, 14.45']My like or dislike has no bearing here. It truly is piss poor writing.[/quote]
It is moderate to good writing, with some piss poor spots and some really good spots.

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1416749' date='Jun 26 2008, 14.45']I might not have had a problem with the solution-through-magic (despite the poor quality of writing) even with how it was used if it had been used in a logical and believable manner. As a solution, it was a cop out.[/quote]
:huh: "I might have liked it if it was completely different"?

As a solution, I too thought it was a cop out....regardless of how it related to earlier parts of the story.

[Kheldar]

Rakehell, I have to be quick (I gotta get in the car and drive), but I just wanted you to know that I appreciate the tone of your response.

You disagree with addicted, but not in a disagreeable manner.

In all sincerity, thank you.

[The Pita]

I actually agree with Kheldar on this issue as well.
TG contrived an impossible situation in which the only way Richard would survive (not including the amazing god of machinery at the end, where through magic he finds the cure) would be to go through the crowd with the sword.
The point was:
Richard was near something that would allow him to live. There was a crowd of people making it impossible for him to pass and get it. He has absolutely no allies around him that can do anything to disperse the crowd without killing them.
While I would never choose what he did (I'd rather die than have 2 other people die, not to mention the mass slaughter Richard does), I can understand the reasoning perfectly.
EDIT- Fuckin A, Kheldar's been on-line for almost a year less than I have and he reached Sellsword already

[Derfel Cadarn]

My bone of contention is that TG seems to deliberately introduce these elements into the books, not because they enhance the story but to allow him to drive a point home.

It's almost like "peace protesters piss me off, I'm going to incorporate my disdain for them in my next book and show that they are evil". Cue next book with peace protesters written in such a way that they are clearly helping the enemy giving the hero justification in killing them. Going by the poison thing the author has gone out of his way to give the hero every reason to kill these pacifists. It's piss poor writing.

Pacifists could have been implemented in it to provide a different point of view, to give the hero some conflict in his course of action, some anguish later on in whether or not the death of noncombatants was justified. No, instead we have some strawmen/women/babies for Tricky Dicky to cut down to 'prove' TG's point that pacifism and Canada sucks.

[Moosicus]

[quote name='PitaCake' post='1416903' date='Jun 26 2008, 17.16']EDIT- Fuckin A, Kheldar's been on-line for almost a year less than I have and he reached Sellsword already[/quote]
Told ya. Take on all comers in a Terry Goodkind Defense thread and Council Member status is right around the corner. Though in all my years I never thought I'd actually see anybody try it.

So, Bravo...I guess.

[The Pita]

Addicted did, but doesn't have nearly enough free time. Kheldar is successful. It's kinda scary.
13 days, 108 posts. Almost as scary as Father Ted (Bundy)
And I couldn't help but agree with Derfel.

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Derfel Cadarn' post='1416991' date='Jun 26 2008, 14.03']My bone of contention is that TG seems to deliberately introduce these elements into the books, not because they enhance the story but to allow him to drive a point home.[/quote]
This is one of the major problems with Terry: he uses his authorial license to create situations that could never happen in real life in an attempt to justify his beliefs.

[Foreverlad]

I'll have a difficult time getting the gist of my post out, but here goes:

Important Human Themes is fine, if that's what you want to write about. If you want I.H.T. set in a fantasy world, so be it. What I don't understand is why these I.H.T. and philosophies aren't enough to solve the overall problems within the story. Goodkind doesn't want the reader to focus on the magic; he doesn't want the story to revolve around it. Yet most of the plotlines and stories I remember rely heavily on the magic or the deus ex machina to get the job done for him. The arguments and philosophies are fairly straightforward, but when the climax (and/or denouement) are propped up by the the very aspects of the story the reader shouldn't pick apart, it (to me) defeats the entire purpose of the written endeavor; too many plots are formed/resolved or worked around with magic.

Also, why did Jagang need to surround himself with opulence? If the antagonists in the story weren't always portrayed as clowns or hypocrites, stronger arguments could have been made for either side. Look at Nicci in FotF; she started off as a gray villain who had a philosophy and stuck to it. She was willing to live in squalor to teach Richard a lesson. She didn't need magic, didn't mind starving, being a fleshy rapetoy, she accepted it as part of the punishment of life. No matter how contrived or silly some readers might see this portrayal, her arguments held more weight.

Why is it throughout the entire series Emperor Jagang couldn't attain the same 'depth' of argument as Nicci? It's all rape rape rape, kill kill kill, I can has sosializm? and doesn't provide much argument. Whether you side with Objectivism or not, you can't fairly examine it (or accept it) without a strong argument against it. When it's a Business Suit vs. A Clown Suit in court, the Business suit is likely going to win. I understand Goodkind is selling Pro-Objectivism, but does that rightfully negate careful examination of the anithesis?

This isn't a challenge, you guys aren't Goodkind, you don't owe me any explanations. It is some of my contention with the series though.

[Eurytus]

[quote name='Derfel Cadarn' post='1416991' date='Jun 26 2008, 22.03']My bone of contention is that TG seems to deliberately introduce these elements into the books, not because they enhance the story but to allow him to drive a point home.

It's almost like "peace protesters piss me off, I'm going to incorporate my disdain for them in my next book and show that they are evil". Cue next book with peace protesters written in such a way that they are clearly helping the enemy giving the hero justification in killing them. Going by the poison thing the author has gone out of his way to give the hero every reason to kill these pacifists. It's piss poor writing.

Pacifists could have been implemented in it to provide a different point of view, to give the hero some conflict in his course of action, some anguish later on in whether or not the death of noncombatants was justified. No, instead we have some strawmen/women/babies for Tricky Dicky to cut down to 'prove' TG's point that pacifism and Canada sucks.[/quote]

Yep, that's exactly the problem. Goodkind decides who he wants to demonise (and seemingly vicariously inflict pain on through his character) and then creates a situation in which inflicting said pain is justified. At least in his eyes.

The fact that he is attempting to do this, to portray the opposition as completely in the wrong, and yet pretty much anyone can still drive a coach and horses through his argument is frankly worrying.