Goodkind XIX: Making spaghetti bounce since 1994!

[Jaxom 1974]

Agulla, WLU, you two are so good. . WLU, do you mind if I put that piece in my LJ? I just...wanna preserve it for posterity.

I've come to think of Tairy as an 'instant gratification thing'. Kinda like wanking.

True dat. I can't wait to see what "reprisals" come about from such a perfectly played critique that pretty much sums up the thesis of the last 19 threads (and side threads and other threads on other forums).

[The Real Will]

To answer Will, you can fulfill whatever sick wishes you wish with your dirty, dirty fanfic. Naughty boy! But the Aes Sedai, as obnoxious as they can be, are just trying to do what they believe to be best for the world

I think I'm being ever so slightly meligned here. I was actually trying to say that Goodlkind writes Aes Sedai bashing fanfic, not that anyone should. I basically agree with you, and I think my attempts at humour gat in the way. Goodkind gives into whatever urges happen to stike him while writing. Most people read the Aes Sedai and are maybe frustrated, Goodkind reads them (or not) and then has their order torn apart and most of them raped. I'm not endorsing this. He does it with everything. In fact the Aes Sedai are the least example. Your example of Damin Ness is a better one. Goodkind charicatures the things he dislikes until they are terrible beyond baring, and then does horrible things to them and he believes his readers will be satisfied. Many of them are. Do you hate annoying children, or whiny protesters? Well watch what I can do to them.

That's what I was trying to say. That being said, I agree with both your posts in their entirity.

[Dycedarg]

...but will you give me just a little bit of WoT fanfic wish fulfilment?

Is that the one where Rand gets shielded and locked in a room with Min, Elayne and Aviendha, the one where Logain torches the White Tower and makes Egwene apologize for being such an annoying $*&% to read about or the one where Perrin and everyone in his storyline suddenly drops dead for no apparent reason (cooperation with the Seanchan?! No way!)?

[The Wolf Maid]

Of course we all have wishes, which is probably why many like SoT. It's a wish fullfillment fanfic, after call, complete with Mary Sues, Gary Stues, Stupid Villains and other whatnots like festishes. It's for those who wish that they could do want they want without bad consequences, consensus, and without the burden of a guilty conscience.

[Piper]

@ WLU:

Hammer, nail, contact on head.

To add, and going back to the Futurama quotes from the last thread:

Fry: Married? Jenny can't get married.

Leela: Why not? It's clever, it's unexpected.

Fry: But that's not why people watch TV [or read Goodking]. Clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared.

[Happy Ent]

That was a nice contribution, WLU. I'd like more of those on this thread, as well as more parodies (and less of the pat-each-other's-backs-for-trolling-other-sites-messages).

Goodkind's appeal is like McDonald's appeal. It's quick and easy to eat (read), [...]

Really? I never read Goodkind apart from the Quotes of the Day, and I must say that I find his prose very hard to parse. MinDonner mocks that masterfully in some of her parodies, with choppy sentences, and bad rythm, and sentences that turn out to have a different structure than you thought at the beginning really annoy me. Not easy to read at all.

[whelp]

@WLU:

Have a beer for the very good Goodkind-evaluation

Happy Ent:

I'd like more of those on this thread, as well as more parodies (and less of the pat-each-other's-backs-for-trolling-other-sites-messages).

[The Wolf Maid]

To add, and going back to the Futurama quotes from the last thread:

Oh, I watched that episode. Heh. Definitely fitting for Goodkind.

[Moosicus]

WLU's post was so beautiful it made me fall to my knees and weep.

As for it being easy to read, well, most of the time it is. It will go along at a fine pace for a while, and then you run into a wall. Usually when Ol' Dick opens his mouth, either to give a speech or discuss reprsentational designs involving lethality. Parts like that make no sense and it's tempting to give the passage another go, even though you know you still won't get it.

[The Wolf Maid]

Language-wise, he's an easy read, but with regards to sense, most of time it's pretty much shot to hell.

[MinDonner]

Here's my contribution to the Facebook discussion:

"Hello all, I was invited by Adam to share my views with this board, so please don't think I've just come here to troll. I can't speak for everyone else on the anti-Goodkind boards, but I can certainly explain my own attitude to Goodkind and why I enjoy ridiculing his works. If my views aren't welcome then please let me know and I'll leave this group; I know that people expressing anti-Goodkind sentiments are regularly banned from his usual forums, but I would like a chance to have a non-abusive conversation about this and address some of mystar (Ron)'s points.

To address Kirstine's point first, there has certainly been serious argument on the boards about exactly why we think Goodkind's writing is bad, and why his philosophy is objectionable; it's just that the boards have been running for many months now and you'd have to read through a lot to find it. Given that you are Goodkind fans here, I don't expect you to do that, so I'll summarise the arguments now.

So, why do we bash Goodkind? Firstly and foremostly, because it's funny. We don't have a particular agenda to push, and we certainly don't "hate that he exists"; we just find him a ripe subject for parody and mockery. It's harmless fun and has produced some good discussion and some great comedy, as well as building a friendly online community. Portraying us as hate-filled fanatics is just not accurate.

But why Goodkind? There are plenty of bad writers out there, why have we chosen this particular one? Well, the main reason is the perceived pomposity and self-importance of the man himself. From his online interviews, he comes across as terribly arrogant, claiming that his books are revolutionary and original, and that he has serious philosophical points to make. We feel that this attitude makes him fair game. If he was just a mediocre writer who was happy to rake in the money, we'd probably still have a quick chuckle about the poor writing but then leave it at that; his constant claims to greatness leave him wide open to exactly this kind of criticism.

The quality of his writing is the most obvious area for criticism. The tropes and storylines are derivative, the plot twists are contrived, and the descriptions are overlong and frankly quite boring; one mark of a good writer is the practice of "show, don't tell", and Goodkind usually does the opposite. The worldbuilding is very sloppy and does not follow its own internal logic - for example, distances between places seem arbitrary depending on the demands of the plot. Goodkind has stated in interviews that the world's internal consistency is unimportant compared to the story's real human themes, but that's not a very good excuse; most writers can manage both.

As mystar has correctly surmised, our main problem with Goodkind is his philosophy, and particularly his attempts to force it into his storylines by any means necessary. The situations he creates to illustrate his philosophical points are unrealistic, and seem to only exist to show the heroes as moral, even when they commit actions that we consider abhorrent. His depiction of the moral spectrum as being simply Good or Evil is overly simplistic and in fact rather dangerous; having Richard's every act defined as Good simply because he is the hero is dishonest, and removes from the reader the option of making their own moral judgement.

Thoughts? Responses?"

(I agree with HE about the recent spate of trolling, but thought you might like to see my own TG analysis....)

[WLU]

I think I'm being ever so slightly meligned here. I was actually trying to say that Goodlkind writes Aes Sedai bashing fanfic, not that anyone should. I basically agree with you, and I think my attempts at humour gat in the way. Goodkind gives into whatever urges happen to stike him while writing. Most people read the Aes Sedai and are maybe frustrated, Goodkind reads them (or not) and then has their order torn apart and most of them raped. I'm not endorsing this. He does it with everything. In fact the Aes Sedai are the least example. Your example of Damin Ness is a better one. Goodkind charicatures the things he dislikes until they are terrible beyond baring, and then does horrible things to them and he believes his readers will be satisfied. Many of them are. Do you hate annoying children, or whiny protesters? Well watch what I can do to them.

That's what I was trying to say. That being said, I agree with both your posts in their entirity.

My apologies to Will, I agree most heartily with his post (this is what happens when I scan posts across several hours then pretend I know what I'm talking about). I will add this however - if you read WoT and SoT, then read what Richie does to the Sisters of the Light and feel just a little bit smug because of WoT-related projection, that's OK. As long as you acknowledge that it's badly written, derrivative, appeals solely on a visceral level and should never occur in real life. That's the thing with Goodkind, he really does aim to pluck at your emotions and sometimes succeeds. It just always happens to be your baser emotions and never your intellect, and if ever tried in real life, would probably be responsible for the downfall of civilization as we know it. Even his philosofiction appeals to your sense of smug superiority.

Note, I did make one minor correction in the quote.

WLU's post was so beautiful it made me fall to my knees and weep.

If I had carved a statue, he would have first wet his pants, then a melon-sized hole would have exploded in his chest.

I never read Goodkind apart from the Quotes of the Day, and I must say that I find his prose very hard to parse.

His prose is easy to scan, I'm sure it's very difficult to actually read. Fortunately the story is simple enough that if you scan you never really miss anything. I've tried scanning Janny Wurts, Barbara Hambly, ASOIAF, MBotF and it always bites me on the ass, but the yeard never lets me down. Or always does, depends on your POV.

MinDonner is the second half of the argument [ETA] against Tairy Goodkind and his works[/ETA]. I address the books and writing, she (he? Pretty sure it's a she) addresses the person. Mad Moose is the King, MinDonner is the Queen, and I occupy the humble position of court jester and whipping boy. And, of course, keeper of the electric butt-plug of pain, warden of its yeardly batteries.

Note to Werthead - I can't believe you took out the swearwords. I'm sooo offended. Poop.

[Mme Erzulie]

You're so civil, Min.

Great post, though. You could also have included how his philosophy is disgusting, almost amoral and reprehensible.

[The Wolf Maid]

I have a feeling you wouldn't be receiving a coherent answer, Min.

[whelp]

Good post, MinDonner - I hope you do get a coherent answer, instead of some random rant...

[Dycedarg]

Don't bet on it. I nominate a spate of 'You're Wrong, neener neener' type responses, maybe with a few references to collectivist lemmings thrown in for good measure.

[The Real Will]

Actually, there is already quite a civil reply there.

[PhelanArcetus]

Might be nice to see it, for those of us who either don't have facebook or are too lazy to go find the link and our logins.

[The Real Will]

As long as you acknowledge that it's badly written, derrivative, appeals solely on a visceral level and should never occur in real life.

Actually, I acknowledge that it really shouldn't happen in literature either. The whole, badly worded, thrust of my argument was that Goodkind is basically a self-righteous revenge fetish at its worst. The reason I mentioned that I also detested the Aes Sedai on occasion was by way of acknowledging that all of us sometimes feel the frustrations and disappointments and rages that I'm sure Goodkind wallows in endlessly. I think his loathing for the things he sees as the deprevations of this world probably form a visible black cloud which constantly hovers about a foot and half above him and occasionly disperses random bolts of lightning to vaporise small furbearing animals (probably lemmings). I imagine that when he writes he makes no sound, but stares directly into the monitor, typing furiously. He doesn't blink, but he occasionally rasises one fist about five inches above the keyboard and clenches it, a small sign of victory, the only celebration he will allow himself as another evil is vanquished from the world. And in his head the mantra:

"IamthebringerofdeaththebringerofdeaththebringerofdeathIamthebringerofdeatht

ebringerofdeaththebringerofdeath"

Of course if he is really a hunter and pecker the image falls apart just a little.

Note, I did make one minor correction in the quote.

I wish you'd fixed the spelling mistakes too.

[The Real Will]

Might be nice to see it, for those of us who either don't have facebook or are too lazy to go find the link and our logins.

My apologies, I didn't want to stand on anyone's toes, but I guess sharing the reply isn't hurting anybody.

So, Samantha writes:

"Out of order, but:

"- It's a matter of opinion, but I frankly couldn't disagree more with your description of him doing the opposite of show, don't tell. This story is the first thing I've read in a long time (and I am an avid reader, I don't restrict myself to scifi/fantasy) that actually painted pictures for me in my head. I have distinct visual images to correlate to the various places and people in the stories and this is rare for me. I do agree with the distances issue; it was one of my main problems with Soul of the Fire. I actually didn't like that book at all the first time I read it, but after rereading it and knowing going in that I wasn't going to see the main characters for a long-ass time in the middle, I enjoyed it a lot more. But regardless, I personally enjoy his direct writing style and I also don't find descriptions to be drawn out. You want to talk about overdrawn descriptions, go read some Tolkien. Goodkind, in my opinion, is very good at giving the reader what s/he needs to know to visualize everything along the way.

"- Again, difference of opinion because you don't think he's a good writer, but I find his "arrogance" to be quite admirable because he *is* a good writer (in my opinion). The ability to know that you're good at something and feel comfortable telling the world about it is quite admirable in my opinion, because the world doesn't want people to think they're good at things. Society wants the smart kids to keep their heads down in class and the thin girls to keep their mouths shut about body image issues. Stating a fact about yourself should not make you arrogant. I wonder, honestly, which you decided first: that he was arrogant and that you therefore don't like him, or that he's a "bad writer" and he's therefore arrogant...

"- Not everything Richard does is Good. He screws up plenty. But to use the example that you all love to point out (because I DID surf the boards looking for something of substance and all you people do is repeat the same old things like it's your mantra) Princess Violet was *evil*. Yes, she was a child. But she was using an implement of destruction to cause Richard severe amounts of pain. At the risk of sounding like the equivalent of an Objectivist bible thumper (which, I'm not) as soon as she started torturing him, an innocent person *chained to the ceiling* who not only did nothing to harm her but begged Denna to stop her because she was a child and should not be learning these things, she gave up the right to have a say one way or the other in what happened to her. You can hate his philosophy all you want, but pity for the guilty really is treason to the innocent.

"Thoughts? Responses?"

I would add, please be nice, as I'm putting someone elses ideas on site when they're not actually here to defend themselves.