Zap Rowsdower Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Terry Goodkind signatures? Sparkes and blazes, this is a wonderful idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigoTheCarpathian Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 What? Did someone say TG sigs? GET OFF MY LAWN, YOU DAMN KIDS! Wizard's Rule #75: A pubic yeard is no symbol of moral clarity. While one must shape their pubic hair into the form that pleases the Lord Rahl [while displaying their individuality], the pubic yeard is for those who truly have reached transcendence in the way of being the good guy. So shave the asshair you have put into a ponytail, and rid your pubis of the Richard-esque beard that frames it, and find your own [non-offensive to Richard, you will be tortured] crotch hair style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Oh my god!! Now I have to grow a pubic yeard. In the name of moral celery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerec Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Wizards 1000th Rule - You've been had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AverageGuy Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 First time I've had a sig. Maybe I should forget Goodkind and just put, "Richard Rahl is a hypocrite." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerec Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 I got myself a Goodkind sig. The speech seems to be mostly stating the bloody obvious in a long-winded, black/white kind of way. But if we don't embrace Objectivism, then we are life hating jackals of evil, and thus we cannot experience love. But isn't the idea of Objectivism based in selfishness? Love shouldn't be selfish... *head a splodes* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piper Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Wizard's 66th Rule: You may not know anything, even things that two year olds can figure out themselves, unless it is stated as a wizard's rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdanel Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Q: Mr. Goodkind, considering that you have changed your publisher to the new Molehill Didactic, how do you see the field of didactic fiction today? A: My new books were defined in the marketplace as didactic fiction purely because of business considerations, not essential characteristics. In the business of selling books, the fact that there are elements of philosophical discussion and debate in my books and, far more importantly, that I am published by a didactic fiction publisher, nullifies every other consideration. If I were now to write a book about A and how it has been A through all ages of the world, just like B has always been B and C C, and from those profound beginnings drawn a 100%-waterproof, non-fictional proof that all muslims are terrorists who hate freedom, and this book were published by my present publisher, and I used my real name, the book would be racked in didactic fiction - despite its content. Because didactic fiction publishers make their living publishing didactic fiction, they seek out didactic fiction that will sell to the didactic fiction reader, so there is rarely any confusion. Most didactic fiction authors are very deliberate in their intent to write didactic fiction books. In my case, I have ended up with a good publisher who happens to be a didactic fiction publisher, among other things, but they failed to see beyond the didactic fiction elements in my The Sword of Truth series. Look at PHANTOM. What did my publisher insist be on the cover? Richard making a speech. Was a speech, per se, central to the story? No. But in the minds of unthinking individuals the existence of a speech in the story superseded all other aspects and defined the book, therefore it went on the cover. So, my books were categorized according to one of the least important elements of their content - speeches - at the expense of the most important element - the truth of Objectivism shared by every one of you, except those that pretend otherwise and hate life. I've finally succeeded in getting Molehill Didactic to put a new cover on PHANTOM. What is the subject of the new cover? A man slaughtering centipede-like troops. Is it central to the story? Yes. Are speeches central? No. What is? The utter certainty of Objectivism. How is the utter certainty of Objectivism carried out? Through the Objectivism-knowing human mind of the characters as demonstrated by the moral violence to those who are Collectivists. Truth, Personal Supremacy, Violence. A guide to lead your life by. Along with cover content, I've endeavored to mitigate confusion and misconception by having the imprint used on my books changed from the one that says "didactic fiction" to the generic "MOLEHILL" logo and by removing the more overt didactic fiction trappings, such as switching the lecture podium on the title page to a sword. You will also observe that the series name - The Sword of Truth - has been changed back from The Pen of Argumentation and is proudly displayed on the front cover. But, because of the lemmings of marketplace realities, there are limits to what I can do to get this message across. Yet there are those who rail at me because I don't behave like a didactic fiction author is "supposed" to. I don't follow the rules, as they see it. There are those who focus exclusively on this least important element - speeches - simply because people I don't know, despite my strenuous objections at the time, insisted on placing Richard making a speech on the cover of my work, and because of that, and who published the book, I was racked in bookstores as didactic fiction. As a result, in the minds of some readers I am for all time to be labeled as a "didactic fiction" author like some others consider me a "fantasy" author. So I must now follow some unstated laws of writing - I must know my place - because I've been mindlessly labeled a "didactic fiction" author? That, my friends, is bigotry, and I am going to have Richard make a speech about that in the next book. I am not an obedient subservient cog of a group, slavishly following the group's conventions. I am a truth-knowing individual acting of my own perfect understanding of the truth and the fact that I'm better - at everything - than everyone else. Paris Hilton had a similar problem with pornographic cinema fans who resented her because her cinema doesn't follow the constrained conventions of pornographic cinema. She has risen above category names. For most of my fans, so have I. Most of Paris Hilton's fans are not regular pornographic cinema fans. Most of my fans are not regular didactic fiction fans nor are they so bigoted that they think I must know my place and stay in it. While my books do contain elements of didactic fiction, and - as an individual who is perfect at everything - I'm proud of those elements - just as I'm proud of the rapes, the graphic violence, the mystery of a secondary world that makes no sense - those or the didactic fiction elements are not the essential characteristics that define my work. A proper guide to lead your life by, with true moral violence, must have Objectivist ideas that drive the argumentation. Making speeches without physical articulation is not worthwhile violence. Those essential elements that make my books guides to lead your life by (and not the didactic fiction elements) are the fundamentals that are the most important to me. So please keep in mind that, while I will be happy to entertain questions that pertain to the didactic fiction elements, those things just aren't central. Speeches are but a tool I use to help tell important human certainties. The speeches aren't what matters - the personal supremacy of Richard and Kahlan does, and if you do not agree you deserve to be tortured and killed - the Wizard's 15th Rule, by the way. You might say that speeches are like a light used to illuminate some Collectivist skulking around in the dark looking for testicles to eat. When people focus intently on the speech elements, it's as if, when I shine that light on the man lurking in the darkness, they are asking me, "Say, what kind of knife the man is carrying - a bread knife or a Bowie or what? One time you said the Collectivist laughed maniacally as he cut away her nipple. Now you seem to be saying that he tittered like an Altruist fiend at the sight of the burning children. I'm confused. Which is it - maniacal laughter, or do you really mean he titters? Hey, let me ask you a question about his childhood..." They only want to know about the disposable minor villain. I want to know in detail how Richard is going to feed the man's spinal column to rats and make him eat his own lungs before he finally kills him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecchi-Oni Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Wizard rule #10: you are always right; when you are wrong it's a contradiction. (Look at rule #9) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agulla Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 That thread about the Civil War inspired me to write this parody. I would like to say a few things about this one, to clarify myself. This is a parody of Goodkind's books but it's also a homage to a great writer and historian; Shelby Foote (1916-2005). I've tried to write something inspired by his huge Civil War Narrative and of course I've failed to reproduce his writing style. Shelby Foote could so something that Terry Goodkind will never be able to do: write a good story. The War Wizard on the Saddle Takes Command Richard Rahl Forrest was the only Midland commander who Gen. Grantjand truly feared. “His name filled the Commanding general with dreadâ€, explained later one of his officers, “when he heard of a raid he asked who was leading it, if he heard the name of any other commander he remained unimpressed but if it was Rahl then he became suddenly apprehensive.†The Orderist general had reasons to be worried, with an army of 500 000 rapists he had to complete his invasion of the Midland States soon if he really wanted to support his “Proclamation of Slavery†with something other than words. Grantjang apprehension would have increased had he known what the “War Wizard on the Saddle†was up to. He had gathered in Vicksburg a force of 10 000 D’Haran cavalrymen, and was ready to pull the most amazing trick of his career. The self taught strategist-war wizard-sculptor-wood carver-arrow snatcher-jalang player was to prove himself above the lesser minds that populated the armies’ headquarters. Men like Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Longstreet, had proved themselves incapable of finding the answer the Unionist Order aggression. Only Rahl remained now, mainly because he had send the lacklustre commanders to face a firing squat for lack of moral clarity. Rallying his men with a ten hours speech Richard Rahl Forrest finally explained them his plan. This time they would not try to ride around the Orderist army to wreak havoc in its rear. This time they would hit the enemy where the enemy less expected, the cities of the North World. Dividing his army in small companies Rahl would strike New York, Philadelphia, Boston and Chicago, places that would be mostly undefended. The only opposition they would meet would be from peaceful protestors, people armed just with their hatred for moral clarity. Killing them, children included, was a necessity of war for his tall and blond D’Harans, an act that by the very reason that was committed by moral people was good. Certain of the soundness of his master plan, Rahl rode north to glory, decided as he was to “put the skeer on them†as he always said in the words of a humble woods guide. The cities of the evil Order were going to burn as Richard had burned his maps before he planned this attack. Distances meant little if you had the Author inside you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBen Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 I want people to know my book "Wizard's First Tool" is in no way burrowing aspects from Tairy's "Wizard's first rule" despite it having lethal red clad bimboes, damsels in white pms-ing and shooting lightning bolts,sexaul innuendoes, and a main hero with an erect "thing of truth". Nope. My book is specifically and exclusively about fantasy pornography and has no higher meaning! Just thought I'd clear that up to avoid an unnecessary law-suit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 OldBen you need to get over to the Sigging Tairy thread and yeard up. It's the newest fad in moral celery. P.S. When's the book being released? I can't wait much longer, as the content in WFR is starting to lose it's mastabatory novelty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBen Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Wizard's first tool will be at sleezy erotic book stores in a town near you Myshkin! Remember I'm not burrowing from Tairy just as he isn't burrowing from Wheel of time! I've already gotten famous porn stars Susan swallow and Rod Jerks-alot to addition for my main characters Kahleena and Ritz Slong in the pornographic film based on my Rising thing of truth novels! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Awsome!!! But who will play Dickicus Dic Dickander? And what about the Boob People? Do you have anyone in mind for Boner Rahl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBen Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Awsome!!! But who will play Dickicus Dic Dickander? And what about the Boob People? Do you have anyone in mind for Boner Rahl? The juggy girls from the man show are additioning for the boob people. Rod Jeremy the fat middleaged pron legend will be Ritz Slong's mentor Dickicus Dic Dickander. As I am quite a dick myself and very conceited I will fill the shoes of the villanous meglo-maniac Boner Raw! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piper Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 The juggy girls from the man show are additioning for the boob people. Rod Jeremy the fat middleaged pron legend will be Ritz Slong's mentor Dickicus Dic Dickander. As I am quite a dick myself and very conceited I will fill the shoes of the villanous meglo-maniac Boner Raw! Who gets to do the voice of the erotic red dragon, Harlot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosicus Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Who gets to do the voice of the erotic red dragon, Harlot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Who gets to do the voice of the erotic red dragon, Harlot?If I might make a suggestion, Steffi St. Bonesalot would be perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBen Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 If I might make a suggestion, Steffi St. Bonesalot would be perfect. I was thinking about Tracy Lords for the Red Dragon Harlot but Steffi might be good too! On second thought Since Tracy is actually nice to her fans and respectable despite her past she just isn't slutty enough for the role! Paris Hilton can be Harlot. Her valley girl snobbery is perfect for a dragon that holds humans in contempt! "Like Ritz that war wizard out-fit is so yesterday! You are a fashion disaster! You dress like a spic or a nigger!" Hilton's classist and Racist mentality deepens the genuine depth of Harlot as a character! Lastly rest assured top prop designers are working on the 4 Dildoes of Orgasm! (Disclaimer: This is a spoof. Ben doth not encourage racism. But he doth think Paris Hilton is a shallow racist strumpet and a harlot.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleomedes Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 What I'm most interested to see in the SoT film is the tactic employed by the charging D'Haran infantry (you know, the ones ten times the size of a usual man who carry axes no other human could even lift). Terry writes about it as if he's stoked to have dreamt it up (a tone present, to be fair, on every page he's written). They throw their heavy (soo heavy) spears into the shields of the witless and unprepared enemy, and then leap onto the spear shafts, dragging the shield down and leaving the enemy exposed and feeling oh so silly to have imagined that shields were a good idea against spear attacks. I can just about see this coming off in a single combat scenario, and even then it would be a Jet Li-esque fluke. Entire squadrons of chaps (of fabled musculature and ferocity) leaping onto spears EN MASSE is too terrific an image to pass up. P. Jackson's rendering of the infantry collision in the battle where Isildur downs Sauron could, one might argue, come close to Terry's achievements here. When the forces of Mordor clash with the Elves, the Elves perform a sort of martial Riverdance, flicking their swords up Busby Berkeley style. I am willing to forgive Jackson this moment of awkwardness - Viggo's lurch into a Wild West lawman accent is much more alienating (Let the Laaawd of the Blayuck Layund com Foworth). Synchronised jumping and spear-treading at the moment of impact - especially when it comes from the mind and tactical playbook of TG - is something Raimi must not be allowed to omit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.