GOODKIND V

[Lord O' Bones]

After Richard and Kahlan talk for a while as well. Thats some massive internal bleeding too. This also assumes that Richard could actually puncture the entire abdomen with his hand and rip it out, which is also clearly impossible.

The whole scene is almost entirely absurd.

Strangely though, Drefan not being able to stand and swinging a sword are the the only two things that could make sense.

Richard laying next to him on the ground suggests that he doesn't need to stand and if the spine is removed below the arms (abdomen), the connection between the arm and brain remains.

But c'mon...

[Watcher]

or from the same place Goodkind did.....Catholic Nuns. It is simple reasoned logic that any cult or sect for that matter will fit the bill....meh... The simple truth of the issue is this.

So Mystar you didn't imply that Catholicism is a cult in this sentence?

Do this, lose your condescending attitude and actually try to defend Goodkind's passages with more then "anyone can find a few nitpicks in his story" lame excuse.

We aren't hitting on a few nitpicks. Goodkind's entire book is full of errors and prepondous happenings. A nitpick is when in one scene its describes wearing a red shirt and its blue in the very next one.

The Quote of the Day are describing major plot points that are plainly absurd, poorly written or morally repugnant.

Please apply your efforts in justifying these questions.

When Richard kicked the 8 year old in the face so hard he shatters her teeth Goodkind attributed to Richard's "thing" rising. This "thing" is essentail to his Richard's actions. What exactly was the "thing" anger? happiness? a psychotic break from reality? Justified how that is a good description.

Defend Richard's action when he attacked the unarmed protesters. A strong theme in these books is that people should be free to make their own choices. In that view how can an attack on a peaceful rally of people who are vocalizing their beliefs justified?

Terry Goodkind stated that he had Richard tortured WFR to show

"The true horror of abuse is helplessness.  It's knowing that you have lost your individual life, and it now belongs to another person, and they can do anything with it that they want to do.  And because you so completely understand the position this guy is in, it feels like 40 pages of torture.  But it doesn't really talk about the torture; it talks about his thinking process, of dealing with his situation, and it seems torturous because now you understand the horror of abuse."

http://www.scifidimensions.com/Aug03/terrygoodkind.htm

In regard to this statement how is Kahhan action justified when she condemns the assassin to be tortured all night and killed in the morning? Is she not doing exactly what Goodkind considers evil or wrong?

[mystar]

Probably a good thing for Scott that Goodkind passed on writing the blurb. Between the awful leering face in a circle and castles cover and a Goodkind rec I doubt I ever would've picked up the book.

As for the rest, I think the thread is kind of getting off track with the Jordan speculation. There is no dearth of 100% true material, with sources to back it up to have a go at Goodkind with. No real need to venture into speculations about who or what he might've lifted.

Bakker didn't pass up on it, it was Goodkind who passed on it....

[Merentha]

Where do you get all this information?

[mystar]

people, people, people!

let's not let mystar or RJ get us off track here:

how exactly would a man get off a sword swipe with half his spine missing?

that's why its called fiction.... perhaps you've heard of it...

[Merentha]

I call it fantasy.

Edit: Or fiction that is not fiction, but evil incarnate. Take your pick.

[mystar]

So Mystar you didn't imply that Catholicism is a cult in this sentence?

Indeed not. I simply stated that anything woud fit the bill That Nun's may or may not have beencalled a cult is not my implication, nor my intent. I simply lumped all things togather.

As to the rest of it..why? I have on several occasions... on .net. I'll not do it here,as it would only fall on deaf ears and blind eyes. If you've read teh passages, then you know the back ground to the plot. That shoudl be enough, unless you refuse to allow yourself to understand.

So thank you no, I'll not indulge you here.

Where do you get all this information?

Much of it from Tor. I have several contacts within the publishing world, and simply ask any note worthy author, they will also attest to this fact.

[Merentha]

Any noteworthy author can tell me that Goodkind passed up endorsing Bakker's work?

[Baeraad]

As to the rest of it..why? I have on several occasions... on .net. I'll not do it here,as it would only fall on deaf ears and blind eyes. If you've read teh passages, then you know the back ground to the plot. That shoudl be enough, unless you refuse to allow yourself to understand.

So as usual, you're just going to hover, smirk a lot and repeat again and again your (frankly surreal) view of what we are and what we want, while refusing to meet any serious arguments?

Yes, we take cheap shots at Goodkind. Why not? It's fun, and since you're the only Goodkind fan who reads this, no one gets hurt. But you may have noticed that every time you show up, at least a couple of people try to have a rational discussion with you, and you always answer with some variant of "I won't demean myself by arguing with you."

Well, you don't really have to. I think we can guess your answers anyway - just a long string of "but you have to slaughter anyone in your way! Otherwise you betray Life!". I actually do understand Goodkind's simplistic, self-righteous nightmare of a philosophy, you know. It's hard not to - it's pretty simple, and he repeats it all the time. I just strongly disagree.

But of course you're not going to believe that, because like all fanatics, you assume that anyone who disagrees with you simply can't see the self-evident perfection of your beliefs. I debated with a very devoted Christian for a while, and she kept apologising to me because she obviously wasn't explaining Christianity right - if I hadn't converted already, after all, then clearly it was because she wasn't succeeding in expressing correctly the glory of Jesus. Of course, Christianity being based on humility and objectivism on arrogance, you assume that the problem is on our part. If we haven't converted already, then it clearly is because we've chosen mediocrity and refused to heed the glory of Goodkind. It's impossible for me or anyone else to convince you otherwise.

All of which makes me want to say "okay, so intelligent discussion is impossible; in that case, please go away and stop annoying me," but I think some other people are having fun with you, and I wouldn't want to spoil it for them (or, more to the point, act like I wanted to spoil it for them; it's not like you'd obey, after all). Me you just give a headache.

As for Jordan? Really very similar to Goodkind in many ways, but that means nothing. Fantasy hacks tend to stumble into the same areas - faceless incarnations of evil, sorcerous societies, the Inquisition, and so on. It doesn't mean one has copied the other, it just means neither of them has a lot of imagination.

[The Wolf Maid]

that's why its called fiction.... perhaps you've heard of it...

Yes. But undoubtedly TG hasn't heard of the maxim for fiction writers: Get your facts straight first, then you can distort as much as you please.

Even fiction has their limits. Unlike real life, fiction has to make sense, and frankly, it doesn't make sense how a man can even move when he's lost his spine. Even if you say this fiction, there must be some kind of justification why he can move.

[The Stranger]

that's why its called fiction.... perhaps you've heard of it...

Mystar:

fiction is not a license for lunacy. writing is as much a matter of discipline as it is of imagination, and while the latter half of this equation might find it viscerally teh radness to half a man continue fighting without any way that his brain could influence the movement of his body the "discipline" aspect of the craft needs must take over, and tell the author when he or she has overstepped the bounds of taste, commonly identifiable principles of physics, and even the basest wishes of the lowest common denominator.

if an author mentioned obliquely that the sky was chartreuse at noon, I would demand an explanation. if Tom Clancy had Jack Ryan suddenly fly through the air at supersonic speeds, his readers would expect an explanation, hack that he undeniably is. if GRRM suddenly had a major character sprout tentacles and engage in hentai (if Goodkind hasn't already done this, I'm copywriting the idea now), his readership would demand, and deserve, an explanation.

likewise, a man standing without a working spinal column, firing his muscles, needs some kind of explanation. notice that I've even left you an 'out:' just tell us all that Drefan had a heretofore unacknowledged "thing" lurking in his spinal fluid, which works like magical glue even when his spine is severed by a man's punch.

[MinDonner]

I don't know about you , but I just love the idea that Goodkind was inspired by watching real live nuns. That's where the namble scene came from, is it? Are you sure he didn't just watch Ken Russell's The Devils thinking it was a documentary?

[Brys]

I do find the idea of Goodkind writing a blurb for Bakker entertaining - just remember some of Bakker's comments on Goodkind. He doesn't like Goodkind much more than any of us, so I don't know how pleased he would be to see a Goodkind comment on his books (anyway - I thought Mystar found Bakker's writing awful and Goodkind probably wouldn't enjoy it either)

[Eurytus]

that's why its called fiction.... perhaps you've heard of it...

That has to be the worst response I have ever heard. Fiction does not imply that all reality should be left at the door.

As to the rest of it..why? I have on several occasions... on .net. I'll not do it here,as it would only fall on deaf ears and blind eyes. If you've read teh passages, then you know the back ground to the plot. That shoudl be enough, unless you refuse to allow yourself to understand.

So thank you no, I'll not indulge you here.

You have quite a history of only debating at places where you have the power to edit people's posts. I wonder how that squares with Terry's theories of the "greatness of freedom of speech"?

[mormont]

Bakker didn't pass up on it, it was Goodkind who passed on it....

That's exactly what Zadok said...

Probably a good thing for Scott that Goodkind passed on writing the blurb.

You should at least read what people write, instead of what you've assumed they wrote. It wasn't a long post, or anything, you didn't need to skim it, there's really not much excuse for not getting that sort of detail right...

As for people 'not allowing themselves to understand the background to the plot' - that's a paper-thin response. How does it have anything to do with the issues you were asked about? How does the background explain how Drefan can swing a sword? Could you actually explain that instead of just asserting it?

How does the fact that it's fiction explain it, either? I mean, if characters can do anything they like, even if i'ts impossible, because 'it's fiction', why doesn't Drefan heal his spine instantaneously? Or pull out a rocket-launcher and blow Richard away, for that matter?

Finally, you are very keen to puff yourself and your 'contacts' with Terry Goodkind, within the industry, etc. Frankly, I am sceptical. Are you seriously telling me that Mr Goodkind doesn't browse the internet? That his only connection with the 'net is you and one other person? He doesn't read news or sports pages, book holidays, or shop online? I doubt that's true. You're overstating, and that undermines your credibility.

You're also overstating your 'contacts', I suspect. People who are really important, people who really have the kind of 'contacts in the industry' you claim to have don't need to brag about it.

ps - your atrocious spelling, frequent typos and random capitalisation also undermine your credibility. It's 'weak', not 'week', 'that nuns' not 'That Nun's', 'noteworthy' not 'note worthy', etc.

Basically you come off as a self-important adolescent intoxicated with his limited contact with 'famous people' and so taken with his own cleverness that he can't engage in intelligent conversation, because he cannot acknowledge that other points of view might be valid.

[Slick Mongoose]

Or pull out a rocket-launcher and blow Richard away, for that matter?

That would have been an great improvement.

I still contend that mystar is an elaborate hoax.

[Agulla]

I have to say that if someone wanted to make Goodkind and his followers look bad the best way to manage this would be creating a "mystar" persona like the one that has been visiting this board.

He is always discussing details and never answering the real important questions like why Richard kills unarmed peace protestors and kicks a little spoiled girl's face; or why Goodkind has the "good" guys endorse torture and uses strange plot devices like chickens that are not chickens and noble goats, just to name a few.

I think that these points could lead to interesting discussions but instead what we have is endless bickering about Goodkind not stealing a few pages from Jordan and his career as blurb writer.

Goodkind is badly served with a supposed follower like this one.

[theMountainGoat]

I agree entirely Mormont, well said. The way mystar was name dropping in his post just made me despair at the obvious falseness of it all.

But then again the stupidity of what he was saying did make me laugh my ass off, such great entertainment!

[Elrostar]

I agree entirely Mormont, well said. The way mystar was name dropping in his post just made me despair at the obvious falseness of it all.

But then again the stupidity of what he was saying did make me laugh my ass off, such great entertainment!

I'm just amazed that you can actually understand what he's saying. Maybe it's that I get frustrated by the bad writing. Which makes me feel bad, actually, since I know there are a large number of non-native English speakers on the board, and I don't want them to feel like I wouldn't read their posts just because they weren't well written. Somehow I just find it odd being told how stupid and poorly informed I am by someone who seems incapable of formulating a complete and/or coherent sentence without several spelling errors.

[theMountainGoat]

Elrostar, look within the paradox of the contradictory points mystar makes and you will see the humour.