GOODKIND III

[Moosicus]

Did the Evil Direwolf-Chicken Cocking inspire you?

14D mentioned a direwolf yesterday, that reminded me of our hero Brophy. The bad-ass arm breaker with a heart of gold.

have all these goodkind quotes been from the same book?

Oops, forgot to give credit where credit is due. Shame on me.

[mormont]

“It’s true, Mistress. I have a temper. A temper as big as my muscles. But it only came out when I was wronged….When I settled disagreements with my temper, they tended to stay settled.”...

Brophy’s paws were still over his head, and his eyes squeezed tightly shut. “Mistress, please,” he whined, “I have a reputation.” He opened his eyes and rose up on his front paws. “And a well-earned one at that! I’ve broken my share of arms and noses! I’ve done some pretty despicable deeds!”

I wonder if he ever broke an 8-year-old's jaw when he lost his temper?

Of course that wouldn't be despicable. It would be an allegory.

[Moosicus]

I wonder if he ever broke an 8-year-old's jaw when he lost his temper?

Of course that wouldn't be despicable. It would be an allegory.

I think I'm going to go rob the local liquor store. If I get caught, at my trial I'll pull the "Goodkind defense" and claim that it was allegorical, and the judge and jury are just too stupid to understand. I'll also claim that the prosecutor is only putting me on trial because he has no life.

[Baeraad]

(*sighs*) That quote describes my own foremost complaint against Goodkind (clearly, I have all sorts of other complaints). It's all children this, children that all the time. Children are so wonderful. Anyone who doesn't go all gooey inside as soon as they're in general proximity of a child is clearly an evil, unnatural, death-worshipping person.

When Goodkind talks about freedom for everyone, he means that everyone should have the freedom to want and do exactly what he wants and does, nothing more and nothing less.

[Zadok]

(*sighs*) That quote describes my own foremost complaint against Goodkind (clearly, I have all sorts of other complaints). It's all children this, children that all the time. Children are so wonderful. Anyone who doesn't go all gooey inside as soon as they're in general proximity of a child is clearly an evil, unnatural, death-worshipping person.

When Goodkind talks about freedom for everyone, he means that everyone should have the freedom to want and do exactly what he wants and does, nothing more and nothing less.

Unless its a pure evil child that is not a child. Then you shatter their jaw and sever their tongue when they stick it out at you.

[Errant Bard]

I wonder why this scene reminds me of Gordon R. Dickson's "The Dragon and the George".

“It’s true, Mistress. I have a temper. A temper as big as my muscles. But it only came out when I was wronged….When I settled disagreements with my temper, they tended to stay settled.â€...Damn, so I gather it's bad to have a temper, but if you have a thing instead, then it's ok. Especially if the thing rises when awakened.

[Baeraad]

Unless its a pure evil child that is not a child. Then you shatter their jaw and sever their tongue when they stick it out at you.

Just as long as you pity the child while you're doing it.

[Sad King Billy]

So it's promoting a kind of emotional sadomasochism?

[mystar]

So...none of us are arguing that children cannot be evil in their various ways. None of us were complaining of a child being cruel and acting the way that she had been trained to do. The concern, underneath the sarcasm, is that the action shown was an adult man (bound, yes, but still with a leg free) kicked the child in the jaw with enough force to eventually kill that child.

What are the implications behind that? You state something about evil being left unchecked/unbridled can reign, but what others are seeing is a justification for child abuse. A justification for letting anger and possibly even hatred to rise (and yes, I know the part before says there's a pity for what the girl has become, but I'm referring to how many will interpret what follows) and to be used in violent means.

Not everyone believes that physical/mental violence will 'slay' evil. A great many believe that using tools of violence serves to harm that wielder as much, if not moreso, than the targets of that violence. It may not be a belief that you or Goodkind subscribe to, it might be a belief that in certain situations will lead to a blind eye toward evil, but it is a difference in belief that has to be acknowledged. When the point being made is that of violence (justified or not, it was a violent act) toward a child might be justified in certain situations, that is going to make a good many people sick and disgusted. Yes, I know they can stop reading it (just like I stopped reading Goodkind's work as I grew more and more disgusted with his Objectivist leanings, as those run counter to my personal, Catholic-based beliefs on social justice, among other things), but it is understandable that the reaction would be as it would be. And point or no point regarding the use of children in malicious ways, I do find the scene to be a bit unnecessary in that I have dealt for years with abused children and how they have been trained to do acts considered 'evil' (including rape, incest, assault, etc.) by adults. I'm not blind to that reality - in fact, I would say I'm more aware of it than a great many of those reading this response. But does the end of justifying retaliation against evil justify the means of having an adult man shatter (and eventually cause her death) the jaw of an 8 year-old child?

And in other developments, I replied back to your comments toward me over at the Three-Seas forum. I don't feel like chasing convos across a great many sites, so it is what it was.

Again, you (as you always seem to do) missed the point. Richard had a choice, live or let the evil child become a worse (as she was doing) monster and kill more people than she was currently. OR did you miss the whole she was killing innocent people right and left. So Goodkind takes us to a point where you are forced to realize a choice, stop this sad little evil monster, or be killed. Now while this "is" after all a work of fiction, it has made several inferences with regard to evil and allowing it to run rampant. No one would advocate the harming or maiming of any child, yet in a war or battle for you life, a choice has to be made... So were you in that situation of Richard, you would I'm sure allow the little brat to continue to torture and hurt you, as well as become a worse monster...yes I'm sure you would.

I've a certificate in counseling and the psychology of counseling, I'm well aware of the horrific things what go on in this world, as you have stated. Part of my problem with your behavior is that you allow yourself to run amok and unchecked, You, many of you are willing to stretch truth, ridicule and demean others and out right lie.....

So Larry, you have a child who is behaving in the manor you have on the boards...ridiculing, mocking, showing no self restraint, encouraging others to do the same or even worse, are you then saying that such behavior is "ok" and then you go on and pay the child on the back giving him the thumbs up.... Or do you sit down with your charge and try and help show this child how self-destructive this kind of action is. How demeaning others (even if it is someone you don't know or an author), is corrosive to the soul. How it really doesn't harm the one being ridiculed, but rather harms the very nature of the person doing the action... The point is having respect. EVEN when you think it would be funny to blast someone. Showing respect is the show of character of a man.

You attempt to make us thing you "help" these young people, yet were they to see your actions on these places, they would see your true character and nature, and behave in like manor...dude, your actions have ramifications. even when you think not.

[Zadok]

mystar: and what are the ramifications of Mr Goodkind foisting his sick fantasies and dubious philosophy on an unsuspecting, in some cases an impressionable & young audience?

[The Wolf Maid]

the metaphor that true evil left uncheck and unbridled can reign, even in that of a child.... Or have you missed the fact that children have been used to do evil and kill people in war...They are led to believe they are in the right to be cruel...(yeh you missed that...why am I not surprised)

Being from a country where some rebel groups use children in war, I won't deny that children can be trained to kill for the cause. I thought that children like that should be saved, and be given better lives. Not gunned down like dogs in the field.

But in Violet's case, I simply don't understand why Richard has to do that to her (i hate violet, by the way, she had it coming, though I wished her punishment wasn't done that way); she was threatening him, and though she might have political clout to fulfill those threats, Richard (though bound at that moment) and Kahlan, both had skills and abilities that could have neutralized those threats without having to do that to Violet.

When Goodkind talks about freedom for everyone, he means that everyone should have the freedom to want and do exactly what he wants and does, nothing more and nothing less.

That's not freedom, that's utter chaos.

[BranTheBuilder]

So Larry, you have a child who is behaving in the manor you have on the boards...ridiculing, mocking, showing no self restraint, encouraging others to do the same or even worse, are you then saying that such behavior is "ok" and then you go on and pay the child on the back giving him the thumbs up.... Or do you sit down with your charge and try and help show this child how self-destructive this kind of action is. How demeaning others (even if it is someone you don't know or an author), is corrosive to the soul. How it really doesn't harm the one being ridiculed, but rather harms the very nature of the person doing the action... The point is having respect. EVEN when you think it would be funny to blast someone. Showing respect is the show of character of a man.

Please proof read before posting - this paragraph is giving me a headache.

I've a certificate in counseling and the psychology of counseling

really?

[mystar]

Please proof read before posting - this paragraph is giving me a headache.

really?

thats the best you can come up with...proof...lol.. then don't read it....

Being from a country where some rebel groups use children in war, I won't deny that children can be trained to kill for the cause. I thought that children like that should be saved, and be given better lives. Not gunned down like dogs in the field.

But in Violet's case, I simply don't understand why Richard has to do that to her (i hate violet, by the way, she had it coming, though I wished her punishment wasn't done that way); she was threatening him, and though she might have political clout to fulfill those threats, Richard (though bound at that moment) and Kahlan, both had skills and abilities that could have neutralized those threats without having to do that to Violet.

That's not freedom, that's utter chaos.

Again you have clearly forgotten parts of the story. Richard had no "power" he was aware of at that time. And you again have missed the facts Richard was given a choice, die, or stop the little monster... But I'm sure you would allow the child to further torture you and then kill you..Rather than stop her... Yes I'm sure of that.

Like it or not Goodkind (no matter how much you want to make it look) did not advocate the harming of children, nor does he. You people again simply wish to do your nit-picking and twist what is a fiction to make it something it is not...

[BranTheBuilder]

um,... riiight...

Now, back to the point of this thread:

I've been reading "Chainfire" - because of the previous thread.... I was intreagued as to what could cause this level of discussion - so far I'm on chapter 12 (had to stop reading for a few days, as a friend loaned me a Wild Cards volume that I'd not read before).

Normally after 12 chapters of a book I wouldn't pass judgement, but, unfortunately I'm feeling some strong emotions about "Chainfire":

1) TG needs to employ an editor - someone who will read his work and mark (with a large Red Pen) where his use of the English language is incorrect - simply, he need to learn to punctuate; form cohesive sentences and to avoid repetition of words and phrases. (this is something that even the battered UK educational system seems capable of teaching most children.)

2) The Characterisation is less than 2 Dimensional - all the characters speak in EXACTLY the same way - no quirks, no variety... this makes for a bland and overly confusing read.

3) The "Plot" (so far, at least) seems to be something that particularly repressed 15 Year old D&D players would find to be "Kewel" and imaginative.... once, in a late night RPG session.

but, I'm only on chapter 12 so there is quite e bit of the book in which things can improve.

[Carpe]

Mystar, do you acknowledge that there are ways of stopping an eight year old, no matter how psychotic that don't involve killing them? That it didn't have to be a kill or be killed situation if Richard had thought to use his brain?

[The Wolf Maid]

The point is having respect. EVEN when you think it would be funny to blast someone. Showing respect is the show of character of a man.

I don't think Richard was paying his respects when he kicked Violet and cut her tongue...unless that's how they show respect in the good kind word.

So Larry, you have a child who is behaving in the manor you have on the boards...ridiculing, mocking, showing no self restraint, encouraging others to do the same or even worse, are you then saying that such behavior is "ok" and then you go on and pay the child on the back giving him the thumbs up.

I think such behavior would merit disciplinary action from the mods and owners of the boards, but I think the worst punishment would be banning the kid (if he/she proves to be stubborn and repeats the behavior despite warnings). I think the mods wouldn't go hunt the kid down and beat the shit out of him.

I've a certificate in counseling and the psychology of counseling

I wonder what kind of counseling you've been taught. I've taken psychology classes as well, and I've yet to hear a theory or a method in psychology where you try to curb a child's wrong behavior by beating the crap out of her. You talk to the child, reason, persuade, manipulate (and in some cases perscribe drugs), discover why he/she acts that way. Counselling doesn't mean you condone the wrong things a child does.

Again you have clearly forgotten parts of the story. Richard had no "power" he was aware of at that time. And you again have missed the facts Richard was given a choice, die, or stop the little monster... But I'm sure you would allow the child to further torture you and then kill you..Rather than stop her

...I still don't know how doing that to violet helped in his escape or survival.

And there are ways to stop that kid without resorting to that.

[Stonehelm]

I've a certificate in counseling and the psychology of counseling

Yeah, well....I have a minor in Psychology.

[Eurytus]

mystar, could you point out to me which aspects of this constitute good writing?

Hissing, hackles lifting, the chicken's head rose. Kahlan pulled back. Its claws digging into stiff dead flesh, the chicken slowly turned to face her. It cocked its head, making its comb flop, its wattles sway. "Shoo," Kahlan heard herself whisper. There wasn't enough light, and besides, the side of its beak was covered with gore, so she couldn't tell if it had the dark spot, But she didn't need to see it. "Dear spirits, help me," she prayed under her breath. The bird let out a slow chicken cackle. It sounded like a chicken, but in her heart she knew it wasn't. In that instant, she completely understood the concept of a chicken that was not a chicken. This looked like a chicken, like most of the Mud People's chickens. But this was no chicken. This was evil manifest.

Also, what is your take on Goodkind's ludicrous assertions that;

A. He doesn't write fantasy

B. A granny who buys drugs for her arthritis is morally culpable for any people killed by drug dealers

[BranTheBuilder]

B. A granny who buys drugs for her arthritis is morally culpable for any people killed by drug dealers

He actually said that?????????

[Eurytus]

He actually said that?????????

He said in an interview that if (say) Escobar blows up a plane killing everyone on board and he is a drug dealer, then anyone who buys said drugs, no matter how far down the line they might be, is an accomplice in said crime.

The logical conclusion to that is that an OAP that buys drugs to ease her pain would be complicit in any crimes committed by anyone to bring those drugs to the market. No matter how far up the chain and how unknown to the end purchaser they might be.

I believe he subsequently tried to ignore the fact that he had given that interview. But then you are talking about someone who held up Canada as somewhere you did not have free speech. Indeed held up the US as the ONLY place in the world where people were truly free.

So you can't expect any logic from the guy.