Jump to content
Myshkin

Goodkind 54: How to Revive a Dead Dick

Recommended Posts

Please do report, Ser Llama.

I'm curious what Warheart will actually be.  I'm guessing it's a thing one can possess (i.e., he has a Warheart), but it will turn out to be that only Richard has it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do report, Ser Llama.

I'm curious what Warheart will actually be.  I'm guessing it's a thing one can possess (i.e., he has a Warheart), but it will turn out to be that only Richard has it. 

How many special things that only Richard has does Richard have? He has the gift, is the only remaining war wizard and the wielder of the sword of truth. Is there anything that I'm missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many special things that only Richard has does Richard have? He has the gift, is the only remaining war wizard and the wielder of the sword of truth. Is there anything that I'm missing?

He alone can fight chickens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I first came across these Goodkind threads a couple of years ago, when I was recovering from Appendicitis.  The way they made me laugh was part of my convalescence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel presumptuous butting in, since I usually only glance through these threads now and then to see how the acts and conversation surrounding the Yeard and his yeardly works are going, but I have just requested Warheart from my local library for yucks, so in a few months when they get round to sending it to me [they are not super fast] I may be able to provide some manner of report on its direness. This assumes that I don't cancel my hold; I already feel kind of dirty when I look at my library request list now.

Careful, the last few people who've tried reviewing a book of the Yeard's disappeared under mysterious circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reposting my last analysis.

Welcome to objectivism condemnation where I dissect and analyze fictional characters that also fit the mold as being objectivist in nature. The very first candidate for other fictional objectivist characters is Lex Luthor form the Superman comic book series.

- Thinks that Superman doesn't really care for anyone he saves and only does it to flaunt his superiority over mankind. This is very much the view of objectivists and why every character in an objectivist work that gets described as an altruist would be considered a bad samaritan by people who aren't a part of the philosophy. In a similar manner he can't comprehend that Superman wants to be obsolete and for people like him to not be needed anymore. This is exactly the same as objectivists claiming that altruists want people to suffer because it makes them feel superior to others. It's a rather typical example of an utterly ruthless self-serving person being unable to comprehend why everyone else isn't as ruthless and self-serving as they are.

- In "Lex Luthor: Man of Steel" he makes a bunch of humanist justifications for his actions until the end where he suddenly reverses his position claiming that there isn't a single soul in metropolis that wouldn't have killed the toyman if placed in the same position. This goes together with the Objectivist world view of all that truly matters to anyone being themselves and that all acts of goodness towards others as having a purely self-serving ulterior motive. In addition his enormous ego makes him view all of humanity as stupid, messy, chaotic and constantly making the same mistakes. This ties in with author tracts from "The Sword of Truth" and statements from Ayn Rand that the masses cannot be trusted to act rationally. Lastly, Luthor's claims that no one in Metropolis would show mercy to the Toyman as if that's a positive trait which combines with the author tracts of Mr A who claimed that acts of mercy are at the expense of the victims with the implication that every victim wants to pay back their tormentors a hundred-fold. Objectivists claim that mankind is a noble, rational being but strip away flim-flam and humbug and they really expect everyone to be irrational, vindictive and self-serving. The response to the first is to pretend to be a paragon of rationality and the response to the second and third is to say "I'm ruthless and self-serving, so is everyone else. At least I admit it".

- In "All Star Superman" Luthor realizes that all of his rationalizations are delusions, learning that he could have saved the world years ago if it had mattered to him. This is a lot like the actions of the designated heroes of "Atlas Shrugged" who won't lift a finger to prevent the collapse of the world and even help it along so that they can build it on exactly their terms, collateral damage from their actions be damned.

- From an objectivist standpoint, Superman is evil since he allows and helps evil exist due to his policy of never killing and always saving the villain. He also helps people without regard for if they deserve it or who they are which flies in the face of objectivists only doing good things when it benefits them later.

- Constantly claims that Superman is jealous of him. Quite similar to how objectivists react to criticism by claiming that the person doing the criticism is jealous of their talent.

- In one of Lex's cruelest moments, he cures his sister of a disease and then gives it back to her in order to mess with Superman and in one of his pettier moments he gives a bunch of people superpowers and then takes them away when he found that the technique wouldn't work for him. From an objectivist standpoint, this isn't villainous because he was returning people to their original state.

And that is it for the analysis of Lex Luthor. The next threads candidate will be Walter White from Breaking Bad.

Edited by Scuttlebutt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give us a link.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1329673822?book_show_action=true&from_review_page=1

 assuming it's within board policy to link to outside sources. you may need a goodreads account to read the above. I could simply copy-paste, but I dunno how the mods feel about it.

Amusingly, the complaints of the review are in accord to how I felt about the first book, while this reviewer was obviously a fan of the initial run of books.

 

Edited by kuenjato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1329673822?book_show_action=true&from_review_page=1

 assuming it's within board policy to link to outside sources. you may need a goodreads account to read the above. I could simply copy-paste, but I dunno how the mods feel about it.

Amusingly, the complaints of the review are in accord to how I felt about the first book, while this reviewer was obviously a fan of the initial run of books.

 

Actually, while I get the bitterness of the reviewer that one of his heroes has let him down...well, that review was as hard to read as any Goodkind story...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, while I get the bitterness of the reviewer that one of his heroes has let him down...well, that review was as hard to read as any Goodkind story...

Marginally better than Mystar (hehe, remember him?), though M. had the bonus of being unintentionally funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH MY GOD YOU GUYS

OK so I've been away for ages cos I hate the board upgrade and fuck this place anyway, but for THIS I had to come back. Apparently the real lovelife of Ayn Rand is actually even more fucked up than the Dick n K show?

http://the-toast.net/2016/02/11/ayn-rand-once-cursed-a-guys-dick-so-bad-he-moved-across-the-country/

The title is teaser enough, but check some of the detail:

Quote

Ayn Rand met her poor mealy-mouthed husband Frank O’Connor in 1926 when the were both extras on a Cecil B. Demille movie and she decided she liked his face, so she fucking tripped him. From the thought “I like this guy’s skull shape” to the action “I will make him fall over” there was not a moment of separation.

 

Quote

I would not lie to you about this, the Internet. The lady who wrote Atlas Shrugged was so mad at her married boyfriend for cheating on her that she put a curse on his penis when they broke up.

 

Quote

like a MONTH earlier Branden had tried to end his relationship with Rand by turning in an essay explaining that he no longer felt sexually attracted to her.  

So, that happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OH MY GOD YOU GUYS

OK so I've been away for ages cos I hate the board upgrade and fuck this place anyway, but for THIS I had to come back. Apparently the real lovelife of Ayn Rand is actually even more fucked up than the Dick n K show?

http://the-toast.net/2016/02/11/ayn-rand-once-cursed-a-guys-dick-so-bad-he-moved-across-the-country/

The title is teaser enough, but check some of the detail:

Ayn Rand met her poor mealy-mouthed husband Frank O’Connor in 1926 when the were both extras on a Cecil B. Demille movie and she decided she liked his face, so she fucking tripped him. From the thought “I like this guy’s skull shape” to the action “I will make him fall over” there was not a moment of separation.

I would not lie to you about this, the Internet. The lady who wrote Atlas Shrugged was so mad at her married boyfriend for cheating on her that she put a curse on his penis when they broke up.

like a MONTH earlier Branden had tried to end his relationship with Rand by turning in an essay explaining that he no longer felt sexually attracted to her.

So, that happened.

"And never to rise again,

Till the Dark Queen lifts her hand,

Over dead dick and withered land."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2015 at 2:56 AM, MinDonner said:

TVTropes had its heyday about 6-7 years ago and has been filling up with crap ever since. Besides which, planning raids on other sites is a big no-no round here.

I would agree. That site has been descending into the golden mean fallacy for a while now. The disgraces and the wallbanger sections have been removed rather recently and I suspect the So Bad It's Horrible section will get removed as well. People aren't even allowed to criticize Christian Weston Chandler or infamous dictators there.

Edited by Scuttlebutt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. So...

 

A couple months ago, remembering how funny it had been to read through Tormund's summaries of The Law of Nines back when I lurked on this board but didn't post yet, I dropped into this thread in a misguided fit and volunteered to read Warheart for everyone's amusement. I ordered the book from my friendly local library, cringing as I did so. A number of people had chosen life before me, so the wait has been blessedly long. But now, now my folly has borne fruit. Warheart is on its way. Should be here Friday or so. And then we'll see how far I can get in my attempt to describe its amazingness before it breaks me.

 

It is coming. Whether or not I, or indeed any of us, have the celery for it, it is coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, these threads are still alive. :P The gift that keeps giving. 

(I'vbe just realised I have last been active here in 2013. I did read the occasional thread in the Literature forum when I looked for a rec or review, but I've not been on the site much and never logged in.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×