MinDonner Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 On the other hand, Dick was more than happy to poison the crops of evil commie-loving Anderith, thus dooming an entire nation (including babies and goats) to slow starvation and death, simply because they lacked the moral celery to vote for him. That's democracy for ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosicus Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 Well, once all these people drop dead of starvation at least you can't blame Richard. He didn't kill them, it was the lack of food pure and simple. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the Truth and the facts, to act without honor, and put the lie to our very existence. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zap Rowsdower Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 Well, once all these people drop dead of starvation at least you can't blame Richard. He didn't kill them, it was the lack of food pure and simple. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the Truth and the facts, to act without honor, and put the lie to our very existence. Again. But I wonder how Terry can square up this view with his view on drugs? According to Terry, if someone buys drugs then they are an accessory to all the drug related murders that go on in the world. And yet Terry might somehow argue that Richard is not responsible for the slow, agonizing death by starvation of millions of Old World civilians even though he ordered his troops to burn their cities and to salt their fields.The Q and A I excerpted below was originally from an interview posted on one of Goodkind's sites but for some reason it was taken down. The only copy I could find was from the inchoatus page: 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. The questioner was apparently referring to this Sci Fi Dimensions interview, specifically: sfd: Why do you think your books provoke such strong reactions, pro and con? TG: I think the reason is because the books take a very clear philosophical and moral stance, and there is a great aversion in the world today to clarity. Clarity means that this is right, and this is wrong. For example, when people say "Oh, you know, I experimented a little bit with drugs..." You know, Mr. Esteban in Columbia wanted to get rid of one of his cohorts, so he took down an airliner and 127 innocent people were murdered, just so he could kill one person. So when some has this wishy-washy clarity about the morality of taking drugs, as far as I'm concerned, they are a party to murder. Some people don't like that kind of moral clarity because it doesn't allow them to act on whim. I believe in a clear philosophy of understanding the meaning of life, its values and its purpose. And there are a number of people who don't like to be confronted with those values, and I think that's why they don't like my novels. The basic philosophy that drives the United States today, that drives the world, as a matter of fact, is a derivative of Kantian philosophy. This is what is taught in all the universities. This is the predominant intellectual theory of our day. Immanuel Kant said that you can't know reality, that your senses are inadequate to the task. It's a rejection of human consciousness, and because your senses can't know reality, you can't know if what you see is real. The basic structure of his theory is that since you can't know reality, you can't know right from wrong, and since you can't know right from wrong, everything has a moral equivalence. Moral equivalency is what rules the world today. You see this kind of theory filtered down through everything in life; for example, on the evening news you'll see Brokaw and Jennings and their ilk giving equal credence to a news conference by General Brooks and they'll give the same straight face to a news conference by Baghdad Bob! This moral equivalence leads to the things you hear all the time. "Well, who are we to judge?" "Who are we to say what's right or wrong?" And people who like to live on the whim of the moment, who don't like to be called to account for the things they believe or for their actions, intensely dislike it when someone speaks with moral clarity and speaks from a philosophical grounding that's "demonstrate-able" and provable. That's what my books do: they demonstrate a clear philosophy that people understand, whether they're able to articulate it or not. I get letters from young people that say "I live in a world of violence and drugs, and I never knew what to do, and now that I've read your books, I ask myself 'What would Richard do?'" While they can't articulate the philosophy and morality behind Richard, and I don't intend them to be able to, because I'm not writing a book about philosophy - I'm writing adventure tales. But the philosophy behind them is clearly defined, so that the reader is able to sense, through the character of Richard, a valid sense of life, a noble sense of life. And it's something they want to live up to, because they know it's embracing life, as opposed to the things they're presented with in the world that's embracing death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 Bah. Well, I spent the whole of yesterday playing Mario and Luigi - Partners in Time which made me briefly consider a related parody... Richio and Michaeligi are two noble plumbers who have to rescue Princess Kahlan and save the Mushroom Kingdom from the evil Kommie invaders... picture them both, with yeards in place of moustaches, wielding the Hammer of Truth, jumping over evil chickens and bashing blocks with their heads to get ancient magical artefacts, hitching a ride on Yoshi the Gar... but no. Some things should not be meddled with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 picture them both, with yeards in place of moustaches, [...] Almost irresistible. Get insipred here. There's even a Photoshop file to play around with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mme Erzulie Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 But seriously... How does shit like that get published? Is this not what editors are for? To ensure that you don't repeat the word "laugh" 40 times in a paragraph when you can be concise? My faith in the publication industry continues to be shaken. You don't get it, do you? Repetition is a literary device. This is a stroke of genius. Not his fault if you can't recognize greatness when you see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Maid Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 Someone should write a parody of that, Min. edit: I think he refers to our existence being a lie three times in that speech. Bravo. But if our existence is a lie, then we don't exist. So who's he bitching about? He's some kind of maniac. Touche, MM. You don't get it, do you? Repetition is a literary device. This is a stroke of genius. Not his fault if you can't recognize greatness when you see it. To answer Brahm's question, I invoke Wizard's Rule 1: People are stupid. If being righteous and moral means becoming like Kahlan and Richard, who allows rape, pillage, murder, and torture under the guise of nobility, I'd rather be dead. I don't think Tairy and Mystar's ilk have a very good concept of humanity and nobility and justice. I myself have always believe that to posses these qualities, one must rise from the instinctive, brutal side of being human (like, I don't know, revenge, selfishness, etc.) and learn to empathize with your fellow man. Am I wrong? How is it noble to justify the rape as punishment for a woman who had been previously abused for refusing you (and this woman being your sister)? How is it noble to attack a kingdom (who has never attacked yours) simply because its desperate to protect its citizens? And did I make this up? no, its all written in TG's books. Obscure facts? Why do I have to do that? It's all there, in plain, clear sight. Crap. I need a drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mme Erzulie Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 Drink. I need a crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WLU Posted May 29, 2007 Author Share Posted May 29, 2007 ...take the ears of the IO priesthood (only after their dead, to be sure). 'They're' <ahem> (mumble mumble criticize my spelling of prairie mumble mumble). I just got out of a French test, and I'm not sure if I spelled criticize correctly. Here's hoping. On the subject of Mystar being a douchebag and his mis-perception of the world, on his wikipedia user page (NO TROLLING!! BAD LEMMINGS!!) , aside from his atrocious spelling, he also has a little box (which he stole from my user page after I created it, the uncreative douchebag fellow) discussing how I was "impailed [sic] by [my] own actions and attacks, including being unable to be civil while presenting [my] case I was found to be less at fault than the accuser.!!." Which is not only badly spelled and punctuated, it's inaccurate. There was no ruling on whose fault it was, and we received exactly the same conditions (thus). It must be super frustrating for him to be in a situation where he can't suck up, appeal to a friendly authority or lie to get what he wants (or edit/control the page 'cause he's the mod). Oh, and the formatting of said little box is all fucked up, unlike the source page, where it is elegantly compact and stylish. Anyone know the language rules for use of 'whose' versus 'who's'? Do you ever use the latter as a possessive? I need a rule of thumb 'cause if I criticize the spelling and grammar of others when mine isn't correct, well, I'm the douchebag, aren't I? I hate the Sword of Truth, but even I acknowledge the awesomeness that would be Bruce Campbell as Richard. But, is he taller than most men? And are there men who are taller still? And what are his thoughts on almost-rape? Welcome back Myshkin, and all praise the Mad Moose! Now quit picking on individual fans! No lemming, that's a bad lemming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigoTheCarpathian Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 Need. I crap a drink. I just think the overall heavy-handedness of SoT, coupled with statements by our dearest Yeardi, et al really just serve to outline how terrible (Tairibble?) certain worldviews are, especially when it comes to this O'ism thing. I believe it's been covered before. Basically, anyone who believes that only they are right and that their truth is the only truth meets the definition of a prick. And if their argument back is "You do not understand" or "You are a lying lemming of lies, and are trying to drag me down with you", well, that just sort of hammers home the fact that there really is no rigor to your thought. By the way, do you think that Tairy looks into all of the clothes he wears, to make sure it wasn't built on child labor, and that he isn't endorsing slavery by buying it? Or do you think he's alright with kids slaving away, because they haven't risen up to break the shackles of their oppressors, as Richard would do? Or is he giving up driving (even his precious sports cars) to stop supporting those Middle Eastern jihaadists that are being funded by oil money? Or maybe Tairy makes and refines his own oil, who knows? Or are examples like this not shocking/impactful enough, as opposed to his drug-dealer killing a friend's daughter? I don't know about you guys, but I'm starting to think that TG can't make a point using arguments or prose: he can only use graphic rape, murder, or molestation to make people believe that what he says is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duchess of malfi Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 Is Confessor slated to be the last book that Goodkind ever writes? All of humanity can only hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Will Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 Hey everyone, I'm basically a lurker here (I do have two posts to my name so cut me some slack), but I do enjoy your discussions. Still, this little idea came to me and I thought I might share it. It's not a parody as such, more just a look at one scene in the series from a slightly different perspective as I thought there were a couple of characters whose points of view needed to be shared. I'm sorry if it's a little long and I hope you enjoy it. It entertained me, anyway. So, let me take you back an army encampment circa Faith of the Fallen. ... The Trouble with Luggage It was a valley, grassy once and artfully bestrewn with small trees. It had all been quite green and fine – but in a masculine, outdoorsy sort of way and not in a sissy, commie, bleeding heart, cry baby way. It was all quite pleasant and fine and then, a dirty great army had descended upon it and the ground had been churned up and the trees hacked down and now it had become something altogether more brown, and in this way you could tell that the Creator* had artistic sensibilities and knew symbolism when conjured it into existence**, because any army that churned the ground and blackened the earth where it passed was clearly a thing of evil. In this way, the careful reader will become aware that it is a dark and malignant force they behold here. Were one a small creature, a lemming perhaps, and were one nestled down among the few remaining patches of slowly browning grass at the edge of the army’s encampment, one might have heard a strange conversation. “F*^k!†“I beg your pardon?†“I’m sorry, I tripped over something. I think it was a lemming.†“No, that word, I never heard it before.†“Oh, I heard it from a sailor. I think he heard it somewhere foreign.†“I see. It’s a good one.†“I thought so too.†“It’s strange, you know, so much nasty stuff happens around here, and for some reason we just don’t seem to have the vocabulary we need to deal with it. I think if more people had access to this wondrous word of yours, life would be just that tiny bit more bearable.†“Do you think so?†“I do. I heard the Generals chef refer to something a ‘drat darned by lordy satchel of a device for totage’ the other day.†“What had him so riled up?†“I think it was something about a lack of celery. I can’t remember.†“Still. It was a good swear.†“Yes, but somehow unsatisfactory. Somehow your word encapsulates all that he was trying to say, and requires no references to luggage.†“Amazing isn’t it. You know, I’ve a mind to go back and share it with the others. It would make me happy to do some good.†“No, Lurge, we can’t. My home was burnt to the ground by these monsters and my family murdered. My cat was murdered and my turkeys. They sodomised everything in sight that could be sodomised, and when people start doing that, you know they’re evil. You just know they are! They sodomised my mother and my grandfather and the pig, the horses, ducks and sheep, even Mr. Pentanacles door knocker.†“They sodomised a door knocker.†“Yes, it was one of the amusing ones. You know the sort that Master Fingus used to carve and which were so popular for a while.†“You mean the ones with the…?†“Exactly. Anyway, then the torture began, and not the good, right, morally applaudable torture that your might be imagining either… Evil torture… with pointy things.†“No!†“Yes. And then began the taxation… without representation! And even though this may appear to be a proto-preindustrial fantasy land, which has made scant few advances in moral philosophy let alone economic and political theory, even I understand that that is just wrong, wrong, wrong.†“It sounds terrible.†“It was. The forced prostitution, poor diet, dysentery, beatings and humiliation I have endured since seem almost irrelevant by comparison. But now we will escape, Lurge. I know you’ve suffered. I know you were a simple baker and critic of fine pastries when your home town was destroyed. I know you and your brother were pressed into service and that they held you both, each a guarantee to the other’s good behaviour. I know you despise the small aid you’ve been forced to render in the form wholemeal loaves and fresh tartlets. You’ve seen terrible things. They’re evil. They really are just evil, evil, evil, evil.†As the author feels that the reader will understand subtlety once they have been beaten about the head with it, it is the author’s belief that a more pointed summery of the evils of this particular army can be dispensed with. Suffice to say that they are quite bad. “We’re going to escape, Lurge. We will give their secrets to their enemies and they will be finished.†It would have been at about this time, had one been that furry critter in the stubbly underbrush, that one would have seen an odd thing indeed. First there would have been the sound of hoof beats, and then a horse, galloping fast, would have emerged from the surrounding woodland, on its back would have been a woman, apparently glowing in the dark and behind her would have ridden a small army. As most of you aren’t furbearing rodents, you’ll just have to trust me that it happened. The couple, upon whose conversation we have been eavesdropping, didn’t see the horse riding up behind them, although it is unclear why they didn’t hear its hooves. They had stopped to look, one last time, at the hateful camp. They stood arm in arm, and if the woman on the horse assumed it was "at a price" then that was entirely her own value judgement and had nothing to do with the facts of the situation. The man was on the far side of the woman as the glowing lady raced up behind them, so with a mighty swing she took off the woman’s head, instead. The stupefied Lurge clutched the headless body as it began to fall. “That’s what happens when you provide material aid and comfort to the enemy in the form of sexual favours!†screamed the woman on the horse. “And baked goods as well!†the elderly fellow at her side added skewering Lurge as he rode past. “By jeezely knapsacks of gosh darned pursely holdalls!†The man disappeared leaving a trail of muttered oaths and baggage behind him. And thus began the great prostitution purge of '08, what is commonly believed to be one of the most successful millitary actions of all time on a pure ration of kills to casualities - *Who was a secular sort of fellow and had nothing whatsoever to do with faith or morality which is to been seen as the sole providence of humanity at least from around book 4 onwards. **Without effecting, in any way, the existence of human freewill or moral causality which is to been seen as the sole providence of humanity at least from around book 4 onwards. ... And there it is. I have no idea how entertaining it actually is, but I liked it and was in a mood for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WLU Posted May 29, 2007 Author Share Posted May 29, 2007 ... serve to outline how terrible (Tairibble?) certain worldviews I believe the proper term is tairyble, but we must all bow (:bow:) to the judge ment of the Mad Moose. PBTHN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelp Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 I hate the Sword of Truth, but even I acknowledge the awesomeness that would be Bruce Campbell as Richard. But, is he taller than most men? And are there men who are taller still? And what are his thoughts on almost-rape? "This is my Truthstick!" "Hail to Lord Rahl, baby!" Need I say more, why Bruce would be the only acceptable choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosicus Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 Well, well. I can't remember the last time a lurker came out of the shadows with such gusto! Bravo Will. From now on I will endeavor to curse only in ways pertaining to luggage and other such vessels of toting. BLOODY FUCKING LUGGAGE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WLU Posted May 29, 2007 Author Share Posted May 29, 2007 Whelp: Will: I don't know what you're making fun of (Diskworld?) but I enjoyed it 768 times more than Stone of Tears. Fannypack! Samsonite! Briefcase carpetbag bahut! But I wonder how Terry can square up this view with his view on drugs? I love how his view on drugs in no way references the harm or lack thereof of the drugs themselves, just the actions of the drug users. As if it was the drugs that were responsible for it all, and the systems that interact to supply and prohibit drugs (systems where the single most powerful lever to influence drugs, drug users and drug cartels can be found in his own government) COMPLETELY didn't exist. And the fact that the reason the drugs are so damn profitable is because the United States has taken the lead in the entire world of irrationally opposing drug use. And if any other major trading partner does anything to use harm reduction, decriminalization or legalization, they get shit on. If his own government were to legalize narcotic use, production and transportation, all those drug dealers currently shooting each other to keep their street corners would within a year (IMO) be tax-paying citizens driving long-haul trucks full of coke instead. Something like pot is no more intoxicating and addictive than alcohol and cigarettes combined, yet it is illegal. If yeardi put more effort into lobbying his government to legalize (and tax) drugs, well, the government might do so and drugs would not be near so profitable, and Pablo Escobar (sp) wouldn't have any reason to blow up planes to get at his opponents. I would argue that someone smoking up (or shooting up for that matter) is less responsible for killing his friend's daughter or blowing up a plane than the Drug Enforcement Agency, which artificially inflates the value of drugs through restricting its supply. That's what's making selling drugs profitable enough to blow up planes, douche. There are heroin addicts who skin-pop in the morning and go to work in banks all day. You pissed off about drug users doing shitty things? Take your millions and instead of using your free time to write shitty books about bullshit philosofluff, lobby the US government to disband the DEA, legalize heroin, cocaine and pot, and go OD in your S&M dungeon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosicus Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 *begins slow clap* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theMountainGoat Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 I feel like I've just had my spine ripped out Some bright Objectivist I.T. asshat has decided in his infinite wisdom to BAN access to this website so I can no longer bash Tairy with you other Lemmings of Discord from the comfort of work! :cry: I will be making an effort to keep up with the thread and post when I can in the evenings but sadly it won't be as often as I used to be here. Fare thee well oh wonderful Lemmings and let not your heart quail at the thought of the chicken-that-is-not-a-chicken. Remember the nobility of the goat and spread the word - Goodkind is bad. Adios Amigos! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCoj Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 *joins in clapping* *begins slow chant - WLU! Lemmings! WLU! Lemmings!* Edit: MG? MG! NOOOOO! Another Lemming succumbs to the O'ists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 Keep your celery strong, MG. This is only a temporary setback, especially for such a noble goat as yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.