GOODKIND III

[Zadok]

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

not exactly. i haven't seen the article the person asking the question is referring to but here is goodkinds answer:

Question: TG, I read your article on sci-fi Dimensions, and was upset when you called drug users (a group which used to include me (pot)) a party to murder. Do you consider people who went to speak-easies responsible for the murderous gangsters? I would blame the prohibition laws. What do you think of people who purchase gasoline (from countries that support terrorism)? Also, your books have inspired me to give up drinking and smoking (I quit pot on my own, because I hated the way it made me feel). Thanks!

Answer: I have a friend who had a daughter in college. One night, as she was walking back to her dorm room, some men drove up behind her and executed her. Five young women matching her description were murdered that same week. Drug dealers had killed any woman they saw who looked like a woman they wanted dead. This young woman's life is over. She will never be able to enjoy her life, to experience love, a family, a beautiful sunset. Her life is over as part of the price paid so that a drug user can continue to "experiment" with drugs. Pablo Escabar wanted to take out a competitor in the drug business, so he did. There happened to be 127 other people on the plane at the time. They are all dead, part of the price in human lives forfeit so that some user can continue to have his drugs. The people who use drugs did not murder these people, but they most certainly are accessories to murder. Every day people are injured and killed as a direct result of the work of insuring that the users of drugs have a steady supply. Knowledge of the violence involved in the distribution and use ofillega1 drugs is too prevalent for anyone to claim that they didn't know that their use of drugs contributes to and supports that violence. To deny the connection is to deny reality in order to ignore the guilt of helping bring death and suffering to innocent people. It should hardly come as a surprise to hear that those who use drugs would like very much to deny this reality -as if to deny rea1ity will make it go away. Man's mind is his means of survival. A rational being does not intentionally destroy its means of survival. Yet these people do, so little is their respect for even their own lives. And we should wonder that, in their lust to blot out their own consciousness, they have no regard for their contribution to the destruction of innocent lives? Blaming the law they break will not sanctify slaughter. Snatching at scraps of irrelevant arguments to try to wipe the blood from their hands or clear their conscience is but a futile attempt at self-delusion; it does not bring back the lives of those now dead just so users could continue to indulge their destructive whims. The silent, unspoken, unadmitted [sic], cringing horror that grips the user's existence is testimony to the monstrous harm they know they help make possible. Drug users need to be corrected, their lives turned around, not indulged. But a greater moral guilt rests with the cold-blooded creatures who excuse the user - those monsters who hold such a cynical hatred of life that they would help the plague to fester and fill yet more cemeteries with the innocent and guilty alike as they strut around in the blood-soaked robes of tolerance and understanding. We all pay (through taxes) a handout so that many users can continue to finance their drug use. With our compassion we condemn the drug user to wasted lives and countless innocent victims to death, their loved ones to a living hell of agony -all because we lack the moral courage to say it's wrong and will not be tolerated. If my books have inspired anyone to give up excessive drinking or smoking then that only serves to prove that individuals can use their minds to come to understand and grasp life's values when they see them illustrated in stories. It proves everything I've been saying. If anyone is upset with me for saying that those who use drugs are accessories to murder, I'd say that doesn't hold a candle to the condemnation coming from the face looking at them in the mirror. Excuses do not alter reality.

this is from one of the fan Q&A's that has been removed from Goodkind's webpage.

also, if i've been able to parse this answer correctly, Goodkind is actually saying that as bad as drug users are, the people that DON'T think drug users are accessories to murder(read: anyone that doesn't agree with Goodkind) are even worse.

[The Wolf Maid]

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

I must echo BranThe Builder: He really said that? For real?

Whoa...and when I thought things couldn't get worse....I was wrong...

[BranTheBuilder]

Indeed held up the US as the ONLY place in the world where people were truly free.

[Sad King Billy]

Mystar, just to give a possibility in the violet scenario: defy her, show her you're not impressed. Examples can range from a haughty remark to spitting her in the face. Not that's the necessary course of action, but it's a possibility that has to be considered.

Where did you get your certificate? Just for information, what institution is it? Just to end the sceptiscism...

[Asa]

Two authors are competing against another. One of the authors happens to be mentally psychotic. To increase his sales he hires a hitman to kill the other author. So the hitman just goes around killing people who happen to look like the author. All those lives gone just so people could continue reading....AUTHORS MUST BE STOPPED!

[Eurytus]

Two authors are competing against another. One of the authors happens to be mentally psychotic. To increase his sales he hires a hitman to kill the other author. So the hitman just goes around killing people who happen to look like the author. All those lives gone just so people could continue reading....AUTHORS MUST BE STOPPED!

In 1994 Columbian defender André Escobar was murdered for scoring an own goal at the world cup that year. Clearly all football fans are a party to that murder. As well as to the murder of all people associated with violence between football fans over the years.

I feel so guilty......

[Moosicus]

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.

You're way off base. Free speech in Canada? This is the greatest tyranny the world has ever known, a million times worse than the Nazis and Soviets put together. They're probably reading my post right now. It's been nice knowing you guys. The RCMP will be here any minute to take me to a gulag in northern Saskatchewan where they'll force me to make maple syrup and listen to Anne Murray over and over again until I crack and start to walk the party line. Oh God! I can hear them coming up the stairs! THEY'RE AT THE DOOR!!!!!!!!!

[Sad King Billy]

Can't you bribe them??! The Police force in a nation so corrupt as canada probably takes bribes. Try it!

[Hark]

“You understand,†Brophy whispered.

*chills*

Goodkind is actually saying that as bad as drug users are, the people that DON'T think drug users are accessories to murder(read: anyone that doesn't agree with Goodkind) are even worse.

Yeah, he's gratuitous and over the top, as usual. But I think that in his over-stated, egotistical, emotionally immature way, what he's saying isn't entirely wrong. It's the same logic that makes people boycot companies that use sweatshops, or people who refuse to buy diamonds because of all the chaos, death and destruction the diamond industry causes in places like Sierra Leone.

[Moosicus]

Can't you bribe them??! The Police force in a nation so corrupt as canada probably takes bribes. Try it!

Such money as would be required to bribe a member of the dreaded RCMP would only be proof of my evil ways. It could only be gained in a corrupt fashion, thus proving that I'm an enemy of the state and the common good of the people. The Canadian government claims that all people are unworthy of the life that they are given and can only gain salvation through selflessly working toward the common good. You don't understand, Canada is the model for Jagang's Imperial Order in Goodkinds books!! We need someone to come save us, to show us the beauty of life and make us understand that its ours and its worth living! We need a saviour! Help us Richard Rahl, you're our only hope.

[14th Dragon]

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.

Not quite, you seem to have forgoten parts of the story.

One, Violet did not particpate in much of his torture. That was primarly the function of Denna.

Two, at the time, Violet was not threatening Richard but threatening Kahalan who was not in immenent danger. Richard was leaving the castle so Violet was not an imediate threat to Richard either.

Three, Violet was not the monoarch at the time, therefor stopping her does nothing to stop any of her actions since those above and below her are able to continue issuing the same eddicts and carrying them out. Though she was giving orders for terrible acts, the fact of the matter was she was acting within the parrematers of her upbringing. Thus Violet herself was of very little threat, whereas the queen and her court were the true threat.

Four, kicking Violet did nothing to help his escape. All it showed was that he was not completely within Denna's control, and even then without knowledge or the abilty to use that fact effectively.

Finnaly, given the way events played out, in the end Violet, the Queen and that entire Kingdom was an insignificant threat to the over all picture. Easily removed either in the Position of Seeker, and or The Mother Confessor, given their repsective powers and responsiblities, after the primarly threat, Rahl, was dealt with. If the primary threat is not defeated, then they (Violet et. al.) are really inconsequential.

Richard made an extreem tacticle error by revealing that he was still capable of action before being able to use it effectively. That error is compounded by acting in a "lash out" fashion which does not gain any real positive results.

[Zadok]

Yeah, he's gratuitous and over the top, as usual. But I think that in his over-stated, egotistical, emotionally immature way, what he's saying isn't entirely wrong. It's the same logic that makes people boycot companies that use sweatshops, or people who refuse to buy diamonds because of all the chaos, death and destruction the diamond industry causes in places like Sierra Leone.

I agree, I think there's actually a cogent point in that whole rambling mess about accepting responsbility for your actions when you're involved with something that is illegal. Where Goodkind really loses his way is insisting that not only are the people that engage in this behavior morally bankrupt, but the people that don't agree with that assessment are somehow even worse then that.

To use your example, boycotting diamonds because of the practices used in obtaining them is certainly a reasonable and some would say admirable act. Saying that anyone that thinks that buying a diamond is ok is a soulless communist with no morals, on the other hand, gets you laughed at.

[Hark]

Saying that anyone that thinks that buying a diamond is ok is a soulless communist with no morals, on the other hand, gets you laughed at.

point well taken.

[mystar]

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.

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.

Yet you allow that and much worse on this board as well as others...interesting double standard you have there� so then you are condoning the beating of a child for bad behavior it would seem� double standard indeed!

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.

And Richard simply kicked her. He didn't keep beating on her nor did her continue to harangue her, but when he saw that she was drowning in her own blood, helped her to turn over so she would have a chance at life. Again you keep avoiding the point. Richard was in a situation where he had no options. Stop this monster (even if she is a child) or be furtherer tortured. You seem to forget that Richard let the torture go on for hours and hours, doing nothing. The weakness in your point is that you have failed to include the situation as a whole. You simply would rather pick something take it out of context and try and twist it. Sorry that doesn�€™t fly. Were you in that very situation, I'm sure you would just go on and allow her to continue to torture and even kill you....rather than defend yourself the only way you can.

You talk to the child, reason, persuade, manipulate (and in some cases prescribe drugs),

Oh yeah drug the poor kid� now there's an option :::rollseyes:::

and discover why he/she acts that way. Counseling doesn't mean you condone the wrong things a child does.

And Richard tried, but like you she would not hear the truth.

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

It stopped her from doing worse. You must have missed the fact that as Denna had momentarily left the room, Violate was telling him what worse she was about to do... selective reading there WM?

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

See this again is where you fail. It is always easy to be an armchair critic, or second-guess the actions someone else took. BUT until you are actually there in a given situation you only offer up week speculation as to what you would or would not do.

[BranTheBuilder]

See this again is where you fail. It is always easy to be an armchair critic, or second-guess the actions someone else took. BUT until you are actually there in a given situation you only offer up week speculation as to what you would or would not do

Um, I was under the impression that a work of Fantasy Fiction was being discussed, rather than the actions of a real person.

[Eurytus]

Um, I was under the impression that a work of Fantasy Fiction was being discussed, rather than the actions of a real person.

I think you may have hit upon the reasons behind their delusional state. They think its all real. No wonder he gets so angry when people call it fantasy. He thinks its a biography.

Yet you allow that and much worse on this board as well as others...interesting double standard you have there… so then you are condoning the beating of a child for bad behavior it would seem… double standard indeed!

Much worse than beating a child? On this board?

Really? Care to point out where?

And lose the yellow text. It makes your nonsense even harder to decipher than normal.

[Brys]

*chills*

Yeah, he's gratuitous and over the top, as usual. But I think that in his over-stated, egotistical, emotionally immature way, what he's saying isn't entirely wrong. It's the same logic that makes people boycot companies that use sweatshops, or people who refuse to buy diamonds because of all the chaos, death and destruction the diamond industry causes in places like Sierra Leone.

But even there, in those much more reasonable, mature situations you describe (boycotting companies using sweatshops) is based on a fundamental misunderstanding - those companies that use sweatshops are providing employment for the country. They also tend to pay higher wages. It might mean working 10 hours a day, but working 10 hours a day with enough to eat and money to spare on luxuries is preferable to starving with no money and not working, or working 14 hours a day on a farm that barely yields enough for you to eat, and means you starve when weather conditions ruin the crops. So even in this way Goodkind's arguments fail - but the real problem is that he blames entirely the wrong group for being accomplices to murder - it isn't the drug users, but the drug dealers. I agree with that point - drug dealers are often horrible people, and may well murder others. So why are we going about locking up all of the users, who have very little choice in the matter as to whether they have them or not. Why aren't we liberalising drug laws and cutting the drug dealers out of the supply - surely, especially according to Goodkind's libertarian ideology, this is what we should do.

He thinks its a biography.

A biography? You mean, he really did kick that 8 year old girl in the face because they said he wasn't a very good writer? (an extrapolation from existing evidence) - I'm surprised he didn't have Richard say "You're too young to understand what I'm" or something along those lines

@Mystar, I'm afraid that objectively what you said about it being much worse on this board is false. Through the internet alone and these boards, it is not possible to physically attack someone. Insulting someone, banning them from visiting here - anything like that is morally far superior to kicking an 8 year old child in the face. For example, you have not been physically attacked while you have been posting here, have you? Insulted, perhaps, but then you've responded in kind by insulting us. What you are suggesting is that what actually happens is you make one of your ridiculous generalisations ("90% of Europeans want to live in America"), someone goes to your house, beats you up and nearly kills you. That's rather different to saying "I don't agree with what you're saying" or "what you wrote is nonsense" or anything similar.

[Baeraad]

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

Ah - I expressed myself unclearly, it seems. Please allow me to correct myself:

Goodkind thinks everyone should have the freedom to live their lives in the exact same way that Goodkind wants to live his life.

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.

That's making two big assumptions. One is that if you don't do anything, no one else will. The second is that if you don't do anything right now, you'll never get another chance. Together, those two assumptions create sense of desperation that makes any sort of action, no matter how heavyhanded or unethical, preferable to inaction.

The first is pure arrogance. There's a lot of people in the world, and quite a few of them are interested in making things better. When deciding whether or not to act, you don't just have to weigh the merit of changing things in what manner you can against the merit of letting them remain as they are. You also have to consider the chance of someone else being able to present a better solution.

The second is just childish. "I don't wanna wait! I want it now!" Quite frequently, a better opportunity comes along if you're patient. If you don't have a good course of action handy, you should at least consider the option of waiting for a better one to present itself. But I suppose choosing inaction over action is like choosing death over life, eh?

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...

Consider a) if Violet stops torturing me, Denna is just going to take over again, and Denna is better at it, and as far as I know at this point, my buddies are heading for the horizon with Darken Rahl's magic box thing, without which he's going to die in a month, and with Darken Rahl gone my girlfriend is probably going to be able to get back in charge of the Midlands and Violet and her mother are going down, down, down... yes, it does seem to be the sensible option.

How demeaning others (even if it is someone you don't know or an author), is corrosive to the soul.

I beg to differ. Hatred is corrosive to the soul. But it's hard to hate someone who entertains you.

I consider Goodkind to be a bad writer and a proponent of a simplistic, juvenile, harmful philosophy. You're not going to be able to change that, no more than I can change your views. Given that, would you rather I hated him for being a moron, or appreciated him for being an amusing moron?

I know what will make me enjoy life more.

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 will forgive me, I trust, if I find this very rich, coming from you. What "respect" does Richard show the people who disagree with them? What "respect" does Goodkind show people who disagree with him? People who disagree with Richard gets killed, and people who disagree with Goodkind get ranted at about how their disagreement constitutes an attack on him and on all that is good and right with the world.

If Goodkind is really so pleased with his own views that he feels justified in expressing complete contempt for all other opinions, then that is his right. But by doing so, he has given up any claims he might have had to our respect for him. Respect is something you give in order to receive.

So please do drop the moral superiority routine.

[Moosicus]

Didn't TG say that the people who dislike his books are either too young or too stupid to understand them. I'm sure I read that quote from him. If anybody knows where it is, or what he said regarding it I'd love to hear it. I wouldn't want to misquote him, there's no fun in that.

[Watcher]

Ahhhh so here we have it... you don't like the fact that Goodkind didn't consult you when writing this book, and as such feel compelled to point out how the books should have been written. Or more to the truth, to put it simply the fact IS that you missed the allegory in that specific part of the book, 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).

I was quoted by MyStar! I feel I achieved sometype of achievement in Goodkind baiting!

I was going to respond but anything I say would be redundant, you guys did a great job explaining my position.

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 interviewer also asked if people that buy gasoline is responsible for terrorism, since they receive a large portion of their funding from oil revenues. He didn’t answer that question in his reply. I find that telling. He did claim this:

I have a friend who had a daughter in college. One night, as she was walking back to her dorm room, some men drove up behind her and executed her. Five young women matching her description were murdered that same week. Drug dealers had killed any woman they saw who looked like a woman they wanted dead.

Does anyone know if this is true? It sounds like an Urban Legend to me. In another interview he made a similar statement that I find hard to believe. I’m starting to suspect he is either trying to use his Wizard First Rule to get people to believe the BS he spews, or he’s simply a lair.

See this again is where you fail. It is always easy to be an armchair critic, or second-guess the actions someone else took. BUT until you are actually there in a given situation you only offer up week speculation as to what you would or would not do.

No. This is called critical reading. Instead of simply accepting what happened I can make value judgments on the character against my own moral code and beliefs. When I do this I find Richard lacking in several areas and I dislike what the character represents.

The point you seem to be missing is the reason there are books. It is so that I don’t have to learn only by experience. I can read what happened to someone else and learn or draw conclusions from that.