Jump to content

GOODKIND V


Werthead

Recommended Posts

Here's why I think so much has been written about bashing TG:

Terry Goodkind is living proof of the statement that "nobody ever went broke underestimating the American public".

What makes us (or at least me) hate him, however, is the fact that he argues that producing work predicated on such a belief is not only commerically wise, but intellectually and morally proper. Indeed, doing so places one above not only the consumers, but also the field itself.

Compare TG to Brittany Spears. Both are crap. But even BS would not argue that producing crap makes one not just economically, but artistically superior to Mozart.

TG has done what marketers (who are all too often failed art students) dream of doing and try to do. He has managed to argue that the right thing to to is to read and produce crap. That the intellectually superior thing, THE ONLY RIGHT THING, is to make crap!

Now some have commented on this thread and in other Goodkind-bashing boards on our lengthy criticism and voluminous threads that are designed with the sole purpose of ripping Goodkind apart.

For many people, I think the question is: "Why bother? Just dont' read him."

Here's the problem with that argument and why I think so many people love to rip TG apart.

TG is a bad writer. Uninspired and often dreadful prose and writing style; weak, contrived, and incredibly derivative plots; and cardboard characters lacking realism and depth, with a main character that is essentially the author's personal avatar. Preachy, didactic, and laughably oversimplified fiction ramblings on politics and philosophy that is pretentious in the extreme. I could go on. Wish fullfillment that is on the level of the most odious forms of 'omnipotent godboy self-insertion' fan fiction.

Yet he sells millions of books, more than better writers like Erikson and Bakker (regardless of your takes on these tow authors, surely you would agree they are far superior to TG in literary talent).

When guys like Brooks, Eddings, Newcombe, and TG write crap and it sells millions do this, it sends a message to pubishers. People want crap and lots of it. Thus these authors are threats to the development of dynamic talent that wish to innovate in the genre of fantasy. Quite frankly, TG and others inform publishers (who are in a business and whose guiding principle is profit) that it is better to put out familiar crap a mass audience will inbibe, rather then take a risk on a new author. After all, at the same time TG was tossing out his trash, Erickson couldn't originally find a US publisher because his story was "too complicated for a US audience" (he got one after success under a UK publisher led the US publishing community to change its mind.

Indeed, it may come to the point where tiresome cliches to a discerning audience are seen by publishers as ESSENTIAL to a story. Risky stories that reject cliches (i.e. the Everyman farmboy hero who is actually a prince in disguise and wins the unattainable woman after defeating Doofus DUh Darklord tm ), may be rejected precisely because they do NOT include such cliches, which publishers may come to see as essential to commerical success. TG's success must responded to so that publishers won't believe that this type of writing is what should be written; otherwise, we'll find less and less good stuff to read.

Don't believe me? Oh really?

What do you think corporate music companies do with people like Brittany Spears since MTV turned music into a five minute commerical? What do you think corporate movie studios do when they make Gone in 60 Seconds, see it making 160 million, and then do nothing but remakes of the Omen and the Island (the latter based on a 60 eras film that was spoofed by MST3K)? Or TV 'reality' shows? Or corporate publishers in areas other than fantasy (possibly except for literary fiction which went postmodern at least partially in reaction to the above) where the familiar, predicitable hack stuff (Dan Brown, Danielle Steele, Tom Clancy) is king.

TG is the embodiment of bad fantasy, although a few, like Newcombe, are worse writers. And there is alot of bad fantasy. So why pick on TG, and not Newcombe, Brooks, or Eddings?

Easy. Because TG is trying to JUSTIFY his work as philosophical art, not just commerical success. Take Eddings-read his 'how to' books and interviews and you know he's just in it for the money.

But TG tries to legitimate his work as thought provoking. He tells us crap like his work is what we should see as true literary fiction, indeed he places himself ABOVE fantasy. Shit, He DEMANDS this!

Remember, Terry attacks fans who enjoy his work for entertainment value, That's not enough for him. One must acknowledge that crap as he creates is what literary art should be! Its like the National Enquirer arguing that it is the true guide to news reporting, and that the NYT and the Wall Street Journal are drek, that what matters is how's screwing who in Hollywood, not the economiy or national security issues.

In other words, in one area of cultural expression, we have a man who not only produces drivel, not only sends the message that the commercially wise move is to produce drivel which poses a danger to good writers comepting to be published, but that intellectual integrity and literary moral clarity require that we do so! Indeed, that making crap like his work places one above the field of cultural expression he is smearing!

Terry Goodkind is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with American culture today. That's why I hate his work. We're drawing a line against obvious drek in a culture that has sunk so abominably low that its purveyors can claim their odious puerile work to be philosophical tracts of deepest kind, demand that people accept it as such, and view one as evil or perverse for not accepting this, and many swallow this nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who thought that the assassin was by far the nicest, kindest, most pleasant character in that scene?

I kept wondering - why does a young socialist idealist have to be tortured for hours until he finally dies for killing a wizard and a little girl, while a young objectivist idealist (Richard) is allowed to commit genocide, kill and maim children who irritate him and torture anyone who disagrees with him?

Its scenes like this which make me wonder - how can anyone truly agree with all he puts forward in these novels? Fantasy often has inherent, objectionable politics with and undercurrent of racism and misogyny, but the politics of Goodkind seem to be almost neo-facist. He describes himself as a libertarian, yet he hates all liberal values - he attacks democracy, freedom of speech (and thought) and encourages punishments that would make the Nazis look away in disgust.

I think I'm just failing to understand the nobility of the human spirit as portrayed by Richard, or perhaps I just hate moral clarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Those who are born with all the luck and advantages - they never want to share. I waited, but no one ever gave me a chance in life until the Order did. I'm a hero of downtrodden people everywhere. I've struck a blow against the oppressors of mankind. I've helped bring justice to those who are never given a chance. I killed an evil man. I'm a hero!"

[...]

"The Creator will give me my reward in the next life. I'm not afraid to die. I've earned eternity in his everlasting Light."

Woohoo! Bravo! This kid is the evil caricature of a liberal AND a Muslim.. *at the same time*. Parasitic sense of entitlement, combined with fanatical religious self-assurance. It's so.. subtle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kept wondering - why does a young socialist idealist have to be tortured for hours until he finally dies for killing a wizard and a little girl, while a young objectivist idealist (Richard) is allowed to commit genocide, kill and maim children who irritate him and torture anyone who disagrees with him?

I think I'm just failing to understand the nobility of the human spirit as portrayed by Richard.

No, you're just failing to understand the utter insanity that is Objectivism. Any action the boy would've taken would've been wrong because he is Wrong. That is to say he does not believe what Terry Goodkind believes. Just as any action Richard takes is right because he is Right. It's amazing that people possess the arrogance to believe in this nonsense.

I think Steven Erikson said it best in one of his interviews when he said that such an attitude and philosophy attracts a certain type of people, like a swastika attacts a certain type of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woohoo! Bravo! This kid is the evil caricature of a liberal AND a Muslim.. *at the same time*. Parasitic sense of entitlement, combined with fanatical religious self-assurance. It's so.. subtle.

Gadi (the punk in question) was also dark skinned IIRC. I'll have to check on it, but I'm pretty sure it's in the Old World that one begins to encounter non-white people. Not that I'm saying it means anything...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TerraPrime, just to let you know that this post has gone down a storm on Malazanempire. They've demanded I pass on their congrats and that they stand in suitable awe of you. So :thumbsup: Nice one!

I'm glad my post caused amusement for so many. *bows*

Re: Mephistophocles

It's not hard when your target is so easy. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I present: my Sword of Truth fanfic!

The building was like a dark portal to another world, swirling with dark energies. It's not really a building at all, Richard realized as he entered the front door. Stepping through the door, he saw a gloomy shadow from the corner of his eye. He walked forward, drawing his sword, shouting "Blade be true this day!" removing his sword from his sheath as he did so. The shadow resolved itself into a dark chicken-thing, yet it was not a chicken. The chicken thing was huge, easily three feet tall. It waddled forward, screeching its horrible battle-cackle. As it ran towards him, Richard leapt backwards, brandishing his sword. The chicken's presence filled the room with its terrible hatred of moral clarity, the burning tips of its wings filling Richard with dread. It hopped as it came, and Richard ducked as it swung a wing-tip at him, crouching as it swept over him. He stood and backed away, but the chicken towered over him. Richard felt despair and dejection as it slithered towards him, still screaming. He almost fell as a new feeling came over him, a feeling of depression as his nobility and righteous human spirit was crushed by the chicken-thing's horrible evilness. Suddenly, he felt a thing rise up, a terrible and great feeling of hatred towards the chicken rising up, and he chopped upwards with his blade. "Back, ye terrible beaste!" he shouted, and his voice was loud enough to scare the chicken thing. Now he saw that it was easily twenty feet tall, and even the loudness of his voice was not enough to frighten it. It seemed hopeless, but then

Although I wanted to finish this story, a terrible dislike of people who hate moral clarity and the nobleness of the human spirit came over me and I kicked several small girls in the jaw. I feel very righteous and important right now, and I'm heading over to my Objectivist Meeting for Chicken Hate Monday. I'll finish it when I'm done basking in my right-ness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chicken which is not a chicken's presence filled the room with its terrible hatred of moral clarity ... and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.

snip

Richard ducked, he stood and backed away, but the chicken towered over him.. suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall

So, the question is really, do chickens which are no chickens have wings (which might or might not be wings). See, in the first sentence, the chicken which is not a chicken's shadow has taken the form of wings (which might or might not be wings). In the second sentence, however, do the 'wings' refer to real wings or to the chicken which is not a chicken's shadow which has merely taken the form of wings (which might or might not be wings).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, after seeing a few of those quotes I'm like WTF!?

I read Wizard's First Rule, and it wasn' anywhere *near* as demented as the series obviously became.... It was just a bad fantasy book, but the kind of writing those quotes show is truly horrifying....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the question is really, do chickens which are no chickens have wings (which might or might not be wings). See, in the first sentence, the chicken which is not a chicken's shadow has taken the form of wings (which might or might not be wings). In the second sentence, however, do the 'wings' refer to real wings or to the chicken which is not a chicken's shadow which has merely taken the form of wings (which might or might not be wings).

You've changed the quotes from my outstanding work of literature!

You're evidently not worth the effort it would take to stab you in the back because you hate clarity. I can feel my thing rising up... :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning and welcome to the Terry Goodkind Quote of the Day.

Moose, you are my hero. You read Goodkind so I don't have to.

Remember, Terry attacks fans who enjoy his work for entertainment value, That's not enough for him. One must acknowledge that crap as he creates is what literary art should be!

:ack:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:stares at Snowbeat's uhm - thing - rising, falls on knees, and weeps:

You see, all true believers in Goodkind's noble message have things like Richard! Grown humans fall to their knees, weeping as they convert to our honorable cause!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quote of the day, it was a wonderful example of how cruel and unusual acts are excused because it was done by the 'good guys'.

Well, Richard and Kahlan is the epitome of all that is good and kind of this world, and Richard has his thing, so it's okay for him and Kahlan to torture people.

(The Mad Moose, you are true hero. I don't know how you can stand reading TG's work and typing it out for us.)

And Snowbeat, all I can say is: MY EYES! They BURN!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with galactus on this one--I read WFR back in High School, thought it was crap, and didn't read any more. when did he cease to merely put out bad fantasy and become this rampaging word-beast? can I blame Mystar for all of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...