MinDonner Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Here's an interesting comment I've had on my blog - regarding the Confessor's power of "love", lc says: I'm pretty sure Goodkind describes Kahlan's power as 'love' because he thinks actual love IS destructive, just any other altruistic or non-selfish impulse. At least Ayn Rand had an excuse for being so warped.... What do we reckon? It makes sense to me; it's just another strawman idea that if you love someone and would do anything for them, you're obviously some mindless dribbling death-chooser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muttering Bill Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 First of all, I've been working on growing a Yeard for the last 3 months, so Studly is my middle name. But you could never attain his statuesque physique. Second, how is RSURS? I just bought TLOLL on Saturday, read it Sunday, and now I want to read the next one really bad. Only thing is I think its only in hardcover in the US so its like 20 bucks, but who cares. Was it as good as TLOLL would you say, cuz I thought it was awesomeee. Not to go into too much detail, as this isn't really the place for it: I liked it much better than TLoLL. Though it's not a very popular opinion around here, I thought Lies was uninspired and predictable. Not bad; just not as good as it could have been. But I have no such complaints about RSURS. Engaging all the way through. I really had little indication of where it was all going to end up. In short: much stronger effort (but then that seems to be up for debate). Highly recommended. I might be inclined to say she deserved it if he kicked her while she was torturing him, but since he kicked her because she stuck her tongue out... I disagree with it and also find it rather childish that Richard would let his thing rise because an eight year old girl makes a face at him. I say it was sexual frustration. Wasn't just sticking out her tongue that got his thing rising... but what she might do with it. And where he hadn't the option of almost-raping her, he just lashed out. It's not his fault really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I might be inclined to say she deserved it if he kicked her while she was torturing him, but since he kicked her because she stuck her tongue out... I disagree with it and also find it rather childish that Richard would let his thing rise because an eight year old girl makes a face at him. Ultimately it is indefensible, no matter the situation. But the good little O'ists that we're meant to be want to cheer at whacking about a little girl. But then the good little O'ists who are tell us it was an okay thing to do. That then, is when one truly embraces lemming-hood. Which is the proper way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potsherds Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Here's an interesting comment I've had on my blog - regarding the Confessor's power of "love", lc says: What do we reckon? It makes sense to me; it's just another strawman idea that if you love someone and would do anything for them, you're obviously some mindless dribbling death-chooser. Meh. Whoever said that probably thinks that love automatically refers to romantic love, that heady first stage in a relationship which is an 'enjoyable' rollercoaster of emotions (that I'm happier off moving past ASAP) and can be pretty damned destructive. Thankfully, that's not the only, nor the best form of love between two people in a relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muttering Bill Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 What do we reckon? It makes sense to me; it's just another strawman idea that if you love someone and would do anything for them, you're obviously some mindless dribbling death-chooser. I'd always saw that he was trying to make a point that blind devotion was destructive, with real love (as Dick has for Klan) as an almighty counterpoint. But maybe I'm giving him too much credit. Did he actualy, within the books, try to eqaute love with mindlessness? Or was just someones interpretation? (My celery is low; I don't remember.) But then, he did try to link murder and forgivness, so who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baleraxar Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Here's an interesting comment I've had on my blog - regarding the Confessor's power of "love", lc says: What do we reckon? It makes sense to me; it's just another strawman idea that if you love someone and would do anything for them, you're obviously some mindless dribbling death-chooser. I don't think so, actually. We're treated to endless descriptions of how wonderful and pure Richard and Klan's love is in every damn book. Remember, Richard is immune to the Confessor's touch because he's already so in love with her that he would do anything for her. Do you really think that Tairy would let some collectivist evil befall Dick? Besides, if Tairy wanted to make that point about love, Dick would have made a ten page speech on it by now. It would have been endlessly pounded into our skulls. If you have to think about it, it probably wasn't intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Templar Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Besides, if Tairy wanted to make that point about love, Dick would have made a ten page speech on it by now. It would have been endlessly pounded into our skulls. If you have to think about it, it probably wasn't intended. QFT. But nothing is ever certain - who knows how many 10 page speeches are lurking in the murky depths of Confessor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
word Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 QFT. But nothing is ever certain - who knows how many 10 page speeches are lurking in the murky depths of Confessor? Take the number of pages of the book, subtract 5 pages for Richard's infodump summary/memory of the first 10 books, subtract 10 pages for almost rape scenes, and subtract 1/2 page for any battles that might instantly break out. Now take the number you have left, and divide it by 10. This is the number of 10 page speeches you will find in the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
word Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Real men double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Templar Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Take the number of pages of the book, subtract 5 pages for Richard's infodump summary/memory of the first 10 books, subtract 10 pages for almost rape scenes, and subtract 1/2 page for any battles that might instantly break out. Now take the number you have left, and divide it by 10. This is the number of 10 page speeches you will find in the book. Amazon lists Confessor as 592 pages. So, using word's formula: 592 - 5 = 587 (for infodump) 587 - 10 = 577 (for almost rape scenes) 577 - .5 = 576.5 (for instant battles) 576.5 / 10 = 57.65 So, if word is correct, expect 57.65 speeches from Richard in the next book. I hope at least one of them is on the moral necessity of good yeard care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Templar Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Double posting because I am a real man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
word Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I hope at least one of them is on the moral necessity of good yeard care. I hope at least one of them preaches the virtues of objectivism. (Somehow I don't think I will be disappointed) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potsherds Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I hope at least one of them preaches the virtues of objectivism. (Somehow I don't think I will be disappointed) That' setting the bar pretty low, Word. Should be something like 'preaches the virtue of real objectivism.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Templar Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 That' setting the bar pretty low, Word. Should be something like 'preaches the virtue of real objectivism.' I agree. That's kind of like Tairy's editors requiring him to use punctuation every third sentence or so. If he feels like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Monkey Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Did he actualy, within the books, try to eqaute love with mindlessness? Or was just someones interpretation? (My celery is low; I don't remember.) But then, he did try to link murder and forgivness, so who knows. No. I think he was trying to do some character development with Kahlan and Richard there, but it fell flat because Goodkind refused to allow his characters to be wrong about anything. I agree. That's kind of like Tairy's editors requiring him to use punctuation every third sentence or so. If he feels like it. They lifted that requirement for the novel Pillars of Creation. Instead, they just politely suggested that maybe he could include a comma or two every once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Templar Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 They lifted that requirement for the novel Pillars of Creation. Instead, they just politely suggested that maybe he could include a comma or two every once in a while. I've also heard that for Confessor, correct spelling and use of spaces is optional. And the publication is going to be an exact copy of his submitted manuscript - written in crayon, drool stains included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
word Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I've also heard that for Confessor, correct spelling and use of spaces is optional. And the publication is going to be an exact copy of his submitted manuscript - written in crayon blood, drool semen stains included. Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Templar Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Fixed. That was good. I literally laughed out loud on that one. Luckily, I'm working from home today, so I didn't get stared at by co-workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeliriousEdd Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 There's another thread in the literature forum started by swedeheadchris titled "Upcoming Things". Am I the only one that thought it was another Goodkind mockery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Monkey Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I've also heard that for Confessor, correct spelling and use of spaces is optional. And the publication is going to be an exact copy of his submitted manuscript - written in crayon, drool stains included. Ayn Rand did something like that once. Well, there wasn't any crayon, drool, semen, or blood, but there's an edition of Anthem that has the same story repeated twice, one that's been edited and another full of Rand's scribbling all over the text of the book, which was basically an exact copy of the manuscript. There's another thread in the literature forum started by swedeheadchris titled "Upcoming Things". Am I the only one that thought it was another Goodkind mockery? Yes, you sick bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.