Werthead Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 It begins anew! What is dead shall never die! Or something. Check out the new Q&A with Steven Erikson where he rips into Goodkind's philosophy with interesting force. http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/ I can imagine Goodkind foaming at the mouth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oorag Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 He doesn't use any criticism I haven't heard before, but he says it well. Rand and her Objectivists were crazy jerks who just wanted to excuse their idiocyncracies. I like his take on didactic fiction, though. Reading through the rest of his interview, I didn't realize that his world was a joint creation. Must suck for the other guy, who is apparently an inferior writer. I might start reading this series again someday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazzlebane Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 May there always be a place on this board for the repeated thrashing and bashing of Terrance Goodkind. That Erikson interview is pretty good, he shreads Rand quite nicely (Ayn, not al'Thor). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I'm reading through the link that the one guy on the first Forum you linked who went to the TG Forum to try to "reason" with the TG fans...they remain VERY creepy... From One Boarders Response: "Most of those aforementioned zealots hang out at the official site, Prophets Inc, which, oddly enough, is why most of us here stay away from there." The Statement: Quote: Instead, I believe that I'm right, but accept the possibility that I'm not. I do not proclaim all those whose opinions differ from mine to be morons and lunatics who just don't understand my views. It anoys me that they do not see my point of view, and the perceieved validity of my own arguments, but I do not consider them dumb and ignorant because their opinions differ from mine. The Response: "We don't consider anyone to be dumb, or ignorant, because their opinions differ, we consider them to be dumb and ignorant because *of* their particular opinions, which are usually dumb and ignorant ones." The Statement: Quote: My experience from other forums dedicated to books and fantasy is that the people who consider themselves fans of Goodkind usualy are the least tolerant of other people's opinions about politics and also about literature. One can seldom make a critical comment about SoT or objectivism without someone trolling about how dumb you are and how narrow your view is. The Respose: Those are just the zealots from PI. We apologize for their existence among fans of Terry. What have we learned here? Even creepy TG fans can't stand other TG fans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HammerOfGod Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I am a recovering Objectivist...they are cold,uncaring assholes...Do you know what was on the desk of every Executive at Enron...a copy of Atlas Shrugged... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted February 3, 2006 Author Share Posted February 3, 2006 Reading through the rest of his interview, I didn't realize that his world was a joint creation. Must suck for the other guy, who is apparently an inferior writer. I might start reading this series again someday. I get the impression 'the other guy' (Ian Cameron Esslemont) had different priorities to Erikson and wasn't willing to leap headfirst into the writing game until a lot later. His first Malazan book - Night of Knives - has been published as well and his second - Return of the Crimson Guard - is on the way, so he was good enough to get published (on a Terry Goodkind thread, though, we know that means little in terms of guaranteeing quality). A lot of reviews I've read have suggested that Esslemont's writing style is actually pretty similar to Erikson's, for good or ill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nous Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Well, I have been avoiding these threads, mostly because I don't care about Terry Goodkind. This Erikson criticism caught my eye, though. I read it. It actually isn't a very good criticism. The only point about the philosophy itself he mentions is the idea that there are no contradictions. I agree with this; contradictions do not exist in reality. If he disagrees, I'd really like him to point one out. The rest is about personalities. He seems to base his criticism on Nathaniel and Barbara Branden's biographies. These two happen to be Rand's enemies (former friends), who published these biographies after her death. I understand they have been pretty totally refuted by the recent expose, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. I can't really say anything concerning his personal experience with 'out of closet-Objectivists'. Would you care to substantiate that, Hammer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missdrogon Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Well I just purchased "Wizards First Rule" and basically figured out the plot after page 60......Richard falls in love and finds a way to be with her, Zedd is the wizard they are looking for....Richard isnt really blood brother with Michael...Michael will side with the Darkside and Richard will kill him. So I read to page 350, got extremely bored, skipped to the end, read the last chapter, I find out my predictions were true and didnt feel as if I missed a thing by skipping 500 pages or so. So yeah, I dont recommend it, now I have to find another series. I wish I knew when Donaldson was going to release his 2nd book in the third chronicles of Thomas Covenant, nothing on his website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arataniello Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 I wish I knew when Donaldson was going to release his 2nd book in the third chronicles of Thomas Covenant, nothing on his website. The only date that I know of is "tentative 2007" according to Kevin's Watch. http://kevinswatch.com/ Aratan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 How'd I miss, after all of that rigamorole we went through when you guys created your "altaverse", that Terry G. had a new book coming out here soon? Man...it's like fodder for the cannon... Having just read the blurb on what the story is about...I'm so glad I'm done with Goodkind books... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 Great. Phantom, isn't it. Not 'The Phantom' or anything, just PHANTOM! Insipid title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Brendan the Voyager Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I read the first 3 books of godokind waiting and waiting for something big to happen. Nothing did. I kept reading them pretty much because I starve for fantasy and get bored. THere have been about 9 books so far and still nothing has happened. Richard still doesn't knwo shit abouthis magic. He only just now got back to gether with zedd....ugh As for contradictions. He ment on a character level. You try to name one person you know who doesn't contradict themselves at least once a day? I know I do so does everyone I know. It is the duality of man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zahir al Daoud Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Yeah, there's a lot of very doctrinaire, binary thinking in Objectivism as it is practiced. One thing, for example, I've never seen or heard even discussed in terms of Ayn Rand, her works or her philosophy is paradox, which often seems to be a contradiction but is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophelia Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 It begins anew! What is dead shall never die! Or something. Talking of which, where is werewolf and why is the link to the-board-that-shall-not-be-named gone from his/her sig? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 Lying low? (has image of crowds of Goodkind-worshippers hunting high and low for the 'wolf with silver bullets of pure objectivism) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nous Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 As for contradictions. He ment on a character level. You try to name one person you know who doesn't contradict themselves at least once a day? I know I do so does everyone I know. It is the duality of man. Yes. People can contradict themselves. That doesn't mean there are any real-world contradictions, as the term is used in logic and philosophy. Principle of non-contradiction, as first stated by Aristotle: "It is impossible for the same thing at the same time to belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect." This is what Ayn Rand means by contradiction. A and not A, at the same time and in the same respect. Erikson attacks a straw-man. Yeah, there's a lot of very doctrinaire, binary thinking in Objectivism as it is practiced. One thing, for example, I've never seen or heard even discussed in terms of Ayn Rand, her works or her philosophy is paradox, which often seems to be a contradiction but is not. What, exactly, do you mean by binary thinking? And why do you think paradoxes are worth discussing in philosophy? I have always viewed them as pointless language games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zahir al Daoud Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Binary thinking is the tendency to think in terms of either/or, this/that, here/there, right/left, etc. It is (sometimes) a wildly inappropriate mode of thinking which causes a lot of trouble. A paradox is not simply a word game. They are guides to how people think, because whereas contradictions do not exist people routinely disagree over what exactly constitutes one. Lots of genuine paradoxes exist in life, such as genuinely kind people with cruel streaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom the Merciful Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Bashing TG felt good, but did you notice the mentioning of the new guy David Keck? That sounds intriguing. Medieval setting rules! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Vinglan Nister Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 You shouldn't be so hard on him, 3 of the 9 books he published so far in the proper series are very good novels. -> Wizard's First Rule, Stone of Tears and Faith of the Fallen. And I'm not a PI zealot - [PI is a place that was actually fun like 2 or 3 years back when there was still like off topic discussions and fun threads... - even most of the FE users (sister forum) don't even visit PI anymore!!] (But then again I'm not the usual reader of books, am I? ) On TG's character? Well, of late he seems to have become a little full of himself. PS: But I agree the latest 3 instalments make me wish that I had left them *unbought. unopened. unread.* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nous Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Well, when it comes to rational thinking, you have to be "binary" in the sense that any statement that has a meaning at all in reality, is either true or false. (Of course, if the meaning is ambiguous, then it may be true or false depending on the interpretation) I thought that by paradox you meant one of these things: "A barber cuts the hair of every man in town, who doesn't cut his own hair. Who cuts the barber's hair?" Do we have a different understanding of the term? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.