The Wolf Maid Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I'm sorry...I'm late on this this morning, I know...but what character have we assigned Mr. Goodkind? No. No. See Slick Mongoose's earlier post here on what mystar really meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 No. No. See Slick Mongoose's earlier post here on what mystar really meant. Yeah, I read that...I still would rather take the sentence the way mystar meant it, not how he wrote it... I'd rather know what charcater he's been assigned because, well, taking it as an assignation...*icky* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLL17 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I forgot about that. Thanks for pointing that out. Back to the question....Sansa would have done it for revenge because of Joff ordered Ned's beheading. Richard did it for spite for something that has NOT taken place. It'd say Sansa killing Joff has a more 'justifiable' reason than Richard doing so. ...Sound like Machiavelli. Robb wasn't regularly beaten. He won every battle, but lost the war in a bedchamber. And how could we know Ned killing Joff and the three kids could make things turn out better? Varys has hinted that Robert was doomed anyway, he was becoming too unmanagable. And regardless of the charge of incest, Tywin wouldn't have just let the killing of his blood pass. And I would bet there are Houses willing to go against Robert with Tywin, incest or not. There's also a question of porportionality and meshing ends with means. Joffrey has committed, or on his orders, has commited numerous crimes, including murder. He is now in a position of power to commit more as King. Also Joffrey makes a much better case for being a psychopath then Violet, who's mind was probably poisoned by her parents. In the situation Violet is in, she can be nuetralized without being killed. She has not commited any crimes approaching the level that Joffrey has. In fact, is she or her parents and advisors the real threat? As near as I can tell, she has none of the power necessary to make her statements reality by herself. Among other things, she could make a valuable hostage; however, morally questionable that may be, it is preferable to killing, and activity fully consonant with a quasi-Medieval fantasy setting. Just ask Theon Greyjoy:). Moreover, proper mental manipulation and an environment can alter Violet's ideology. Of course, TG would choke on the last bit, so for him, I guess the moral thing is killing the girl. I could see slapping the girl; that would be understandable, perhaps even a case for it being laudatory could be made. But killing someone who ultimately is either not truly a threat, or can be easily countered and even made to serve one's own side over the long haul is morally unwise and foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tagot Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Among other things, she could make a valuable hostage; however, morally questionable that may be, it is preferable to killing, and activity fully consonant with a quasi-Medieval fantasy setting. Just ask Theon Greyjoy:). Moreover, proper mental manipulation and an environment can alter Violet's ideology. Richard was not in a position to take Violet hostage or change her perspective. He was a captive himself, remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLL17 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Richard was not in a position to take Violet hostage or change her perspective. He was a captive himself, remember? First, I've never read the book, only the excerpts posted here. Given that he, the "defenseless hostage," had the power to could kick her face in and kill her and get away with it and not be killed, I fail to see how he could not take her hostage. Why doesn't his magnificent thing, that fascinating plot contrivance of TG, allow him to do that? If he's so defenseless and a poor hostage, how does he manage to kill her? Even if he could not take her hostage, my point on porportionality still stands on the relative crimes and actual threat posed by Joffrey relative to Violet. She is not the threat. She is a mouthpiece for the people that actually can pose a danger to Kahlan and Richard, namely, her parents and advisors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tagot Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 First, I've never read the book, only the excerpts posted here. Given that he, the "defenseless hostage," had the power to could kick her face in and kill her and get away with it and not be killed, I fail to see how he could not take her hostage. Why doesn't his magnificent thing, that fascinating plot contrivance of TG, allow him to do that? If he's so defenseless and a poor hostage, how does he manage to kill her? Even if he could not take her hostage, my point on porportionality still stands on the relative crimes and actual threat posed by Joffrey relative to Violet. She is not the threat. She is a mouthpiece for the people that actually can pose a danger to Kahlan and Richard, namely, her parents and advisors. He was in the middle of a castle of some kind, in a room with only Violet and the Mord-Sith, and was close enough to Violet to kick her but not really able to do anything else. I think that his arms were shackled, anyway, and even if he could have taken Violet hostage and ran away he'd have been recaptured in minutes. Your second point is perfectly valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLL17 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 He was in the middle of a castle of some kind, in a room with only Violet and the Mord-Sith, and was close enough to Violet to kick her but not really able to do anything else. I think that his arms were shackled, anyway, and even if he could have taken Violet hostage and ran away he'd have been recaptured in minutes. Your second point is perfectly valid. I've tried reading Gookind several times, but I always quit after the first couple of chapters. Just couldn't stand it and wasn't interested. Thanks for the correction. I apologise for shooting off my mouth about the hostage stuff. I was wrong on that. The thing is, how did he get away with killing her if he's shackled to a wall? Did his kick, empowered by his massive thing, allow him to suddenly and conveintently break free? Anyway, who lets their important people come that close to a dangerous prisoner? BTW, how does this act of mad passion jell with the emphasis on the need to be guided by reason in all things? Isn't this a contradiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLL17 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 <snip> What the hell is this a commercial break? The voice of god? I wanted to whip my head around to look for the announcer. This section is just incredibly disjointed this section is. If I ever teach English this is going to be exhibit A on, Terraprime’s theory about telling a story vs. explaining a story. (Actually I use the entire passage) Back to the regularly schedule program My belief on this whole thing is that TG (BBHN) at first thought not eating meat was a bit like Superman’s kryptonite. Then he realized it wasn’t something real men do, so he wrote this torturous passage to get Richard to be a red-blooded American again. Wow, TTL17, it constantly amazes me how good of a writer GRRM is, thanks for sharing that leak! Thanks for the compliment, but I don't deserve it. Actually it was MinDonner who wrote the goodkind ripoff. She deseveres credit for the Nymeria line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niamh Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 The thing is, how did he get away with killing her if he's shackled to a wall? Did his kick, empowered by his massive thing, allow him to suddenly and conveintently break free? Yes, pretty much. It's his substractive magic side, which nobody is aware he has, that is impervious to mord sith, and allows him to break free of the spell (the first man to do that in 3000 years, btw) and be able to move. In this case, it's only activated by comapssion and empathy to the killer. That's how he can kill Denna, his mistress mord-sith. As soon as he feels hate, he's under the spell again, helpless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLL17 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Yes, pretty much. It's his substractive magic side, which nobody is aware he has, that is impervious to mord sith, and allows him to break free of the spell (the first man to do that in 3000 years, btw) and be able to move. In this case, it's only activated by comapssion and empathy to the killer. That's how he can kill Denna, his mistress mord-sith. As soon as he feels hate, he's under the spell again, helpless. Okay, thanks for the info, but I'm confused. So he feels compassion and kindness for the Mord-Sith in the room. From what I can remember of the section, this also held true for Violet at first. This allows him to break free by feeling love for his oppressor the Mord Sith, but at the same time he kicks in a girls face out of anger while feeling love for the Mord Sith that somehow cancels out the negative effcts of the hate and anger that led to killing Violet....uh, sorry, but I give up. Where's the role of reason in all this? The whole thing is a contrived godawful mess. Thanks for the explanation, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosicus Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Yes, pretty much. It's his substractive magic side, which nobody is aware he has, that is impervious to mord sith, and allows him to break free of the spell (the first man to do that in 3000 years, btw) and be able to move. In this case, it's only activated by comapssion and empathy to the killer. That's how he can kill Denna, his mistress mord-sith. As soon as he feels hate, he's under the spell again, helpless. I'm going to have to disagree here. Richard IIRC is not shackled in any way, but the Mord-Sith (Denna) controls his magic (mainly the swords magic, since that is the only kind he's used so far and that was what he tried to kill Denna with when he was first captured) and can use it and her agiel to torture him. It's her ability to inflict vast amounts of pain on Richard which keeps him more or less obedient, as she's been working him over, night and day, for weeks (IIRC). At some point during all this Richard was able to partition his mind, to keep himself from being completely broken by Denna, and to allow his rage (thing) to erupt and give Violet a boot in the chops. Escape is out of the question at this point because he's still vulnerable to Denna, and its only later when he learns the power of forgiveness (feel free to vomit now) that he is able to turn the blade of the SoT white and kill her. I believe she is only one of two people to be forgiven by Richard in this series, the other being Nicci, whom he has yet to kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niamh Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I'm going to have to disagree here. Richard IIRC is not shackled in any way, but the Mord-Sith (Denna) controls his magic (mainly the swords magic, since that is the only kind he's used so far and that was what he tried to kill Denna with when he was first captured) and can use it and her agiel to torture him. It's her ability to inflict vast amounts of pain on Richard which keeps him more or less obedient, as she's been working him over, night and day, for weeks (IIRC). At some point during all this Richard was able to partition his mind, to keep himself from being completely broken by Denna, and to allow his rage (thing) to erupt and give Violet a boot in the chops. Escape is out of the question at this point because he's still vulnerable to Denna, and its only later when he learns the power of forgiveness (feel free to vomit now) that he is able to turn the blade of the SoT white and kill her. I believe she is only one of two people to be forgiven by Richard in this series, the other being Nicci, whom he has yet to kill. Disagreeing then ...he boots Violet only because he feels truly sorry for her (don't ask). It's the only way he can break the Mord Sith spell. He's still vulnerable because he hasn't added 2 and 2 together at that point. ETA: Basically drawing on the substractive side of the blade, which is impervious to MS magic. Denna is capable of beating him senseless, for the only reason he cannot go where she does not want him to, physically On another note, this is an excerpt from the mp3 interview that striked me a maybe a tad paranoid (and what I added, very dubious indeed) ... see what you think: TG:(The news media) are gripped by this Kantian view that we can't be better than anyone else. This is an evil view, you know, this is a matter of life and death and I don't know if our country is going to survive that kind of.... Interviewer: multiculturalism run rampant? TG: Absolutely and it's a direct attack on values. (edited due to misquoting) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Actual book discussion between you two? People might think this is an actual Forum dedicated to discussing books and literature and Goodkind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niamh Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Actual book discussion between you two? People might think this is an actual Forum dedicated to discussing books and literature and Goodkind... Odd one out? I had to write down the whole passage of that interview ... What TG really thinks. It's a destruction, it's a direct attack on values, because it's saying that our values are no better than the other countries' values. I mean, look at, look at countries around the world, there's still slavery, and savagery and butchery, and to say that their culture is just as good as our culture is Ludicrous, and I think most americans realise that, but, uh, it still infects national policy, when you go to an airport, and uh, they are, because everyone, uh, is morally equivalent, unable to, uh, decide who might be a terrorist, so they're strip-searching 90 year old grandmothers Int: My 78 year old mother in law TG: Yeah Int: was run through the ..... metal detector a few times (head-shaking tone of voice) TG: Yeah that's right and ..they ... profile one-way tickets, because one-timer terrorists use one-way a ticket. No one can plan(?) about a one-way ticket being profiled, because a ticket is not going to talk for itself, so they profile objects, they declare war on tactics. The war on terrorism is an utter failure to recognise evil. Uh, it's an attempt to appease evil. The war on terrorism is a war on a tactic. Imagine in WW2, if we'd have declared war on poison gas chambers, and we said all these jews are dying in gas chambers, we have to stop this, we're gonna declare war on poison gas chambers, we're gonna find the money of the people who have backed the gas chambers constructors and we're gonna find the poison gas importers and we're gonna stop them. Uh, in WW2 we rightly declared war on nazis, because it's an evil philosophy that was trying to destroy us, but in this war, we're declaring war on a tactic, like we're saying we're gonna outlaw the blitzkrieg. Well you can't declare war on a tactic, you must declare war on the philosophy that is using that tactic. And when people are trying to kill us, if we don't respond, in the proper way, we will die! Just like this piece I was reading you, if you don't defend yourself, they're not (snigger) gonna pale at the task, Evil is not gonna say: you know what, I think we're gonna stop being evil, we're gonna stop saying we hate the United States, we're going to just let them go, we're not gonna try to blow them up and kill them all. Well they're not gonna stop; these are evil people and unless you realise there's evil among you and go after it, It's gonna continue to expand and grow among you (serious deep voice) And you're gonna live with it forever (deeper voice even). (Silence) So that's why I'm not subtle when I'm writing. (interviewer laughing) I believe passionately in these kind of things. I'd recommend this interview to everybody. Such a mix of megalomania, constant contradictions and head-on ignorance, I've rarely seen. (If ever) (it means it gets worse ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BranTheBuilder Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I would lay into his ignorance concerning WW2, but I can't be arsed right now - it all seems too much effort, particularly as I'm sure most of you know a great deal more on this subject than he does - not difficult for anyone who stayed awake in History classes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Hmm, I don't recall America's joining of WW2 having anything to do with ideology, other than "this country is attacking us and our allies, let's (belatedly) get 'em!" .. gah, what am I doing? The Yeard speaks truth. It is known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BranTheBuilder Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 If I remember correctly, the gas chambers were discovered AFTER the war... and I'm pretty sure that invading Poland had something to do with it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watcher Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 A correction Richard didn’t kill Violet, he only smashed her baby teeth and cut off her tongue. I read in a review that she is back, with a tongue, in Phantom. My guess is that TG (BBHN) is wrapping up loose ends, so she has to die in some horrible fashion. Does anyone know how much time has passed in Richard’s world? I’m wondering how long it takes to grow back a new tongue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zadok Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 The best part of that audio interview is towards the end, when he goes off on his rant about SF being a dead genre, and that fantasy books are 95% of SF/F sales etc. The interviewer brings up Frankenstein and Goodkind responds, "well that was a fantasy!" and laughs. The interviewer then points out that the main characters downfall was the pursuit of knowledge and that it was in fact, SF. Goodkind goes silent for a few seconds(most likely contemplating a kick to the jaw) then says he doesn't want to talk about Frankenstein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Templar Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Is Goodkind a mad genius? Most of us here will disagree, but perhaps we are all just subjects of a grand experiment of his. I was thinking about a short movie I saw in school a loooooong time ago, called "The Wave." It is essentially about a sociological experiment an early 70s high school teacher organized in response to students' disbelief on how Hitler could have corrupted an entire country of people. The teacher formed a student group, seduced them with power, discipline, and superiority, and once they were completely captivated, crushed their hearts by informing them that their true leader was Adolph Hitler. Here is a link for more info. It struck me that perhaps Goodkind is trying to pull this off on a grand scale. Are his books just an elaborate reproduction of the Wave? Perhaps the final chapter of his last book will reveal the heartbreaking truth… Probably not. Goodkind is most likely just a blathering idiot. But, hey, if it turns out otherwise, you heard it here first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.