Goodkind XXVI- Preferably Something Work-Safe in the Title

[Muttering Bill]

I was going to type up a well thought out response... but Myshkin and Ft1B beat me to it. Fuckers!

So, instead you'll get my sloppy, wildly speculative response:

I'm not sure, Golden Panda, that you quite understand how developed and 8 year old is. Or how especially timid is an 8 year old girl. I'm very sure, however, that Tairy doesn't. He gave Violet the personality of someone 20 years older. I'll admit that there are some pretty bad kids out there. but at 8 years old they still have no real concept of what rape and murder is. They haven't yet been able to develope the sadistic streak that Violet exhibits throughout the book.

If some 8 year old were to come to me and threaten to have my girlfriend raped and killed, my first reaction wouldn't be to kick her in the face. Hell, I'd be worried about the welfare of the kid than that of my woman. If he's jsut looking to blame someone for the offense, and lash out over it, then how about the Mord-Sith whose been torturing you, and probably told this kid what to say in the first place. But no, that would have just caused Richard more pain for himself. Better to attack a weak child that can't defend against someone 3 times her size. At least then you might get away with it.

But that's all silliness since Denna was really a good person, and was being forced to torture him. Unlike some impressionable child... She was clearly the evil one.

So Tairy was trying to make a statement about lenient penalties for children who commit crimes? Capitol punishment it is then? Wouldn't suprise me really. He apparently thinks it's fine to kill babies too. Maybe he wouldn't do it himself, but that he can so casually write his Confessors ordering the deaths of their male offspring without any sense of injustice tells me that he's probably not opposed to the practice in theory. Or is it more of a statement that he believes all women are viscious baby-killers. Either way he's earned nothing but my disdain.

Oh, and I'd send a happy b-b-day to Myshkin, but he'd never appreciate it. Probably just call me a death chooser for being late. So instead, I'll just point and laugh that you wasted your opportunity at a 3-way.

[Ser Warpechowski]

I've already had a double cheeseburger (w/ bacon), so does that mean that I can't have a three-way now? You should have warned me earlier, you prick!

I think the series first jumped the shark when Micheal gave the impassioned and moving speech about banning fire. This happened within the first 100 pages of the first book.

Yeap. Actually, I still cant believe WFR is the best book of the entire series, since I didnt even finished it because of how bad it is.

Banishing Fire? That was one of the most stupid things I´ve ever saw in any book. And when the focus changed to the bad guys that killed soldiers because of leaves faling to the ground or torturing kids while pedophiles make perverted coments was just too much for me to keep reading.

Also, every few pages you would have something totaly umbelieavable and stupid, like the fact that Richard has been treking through the woods for several days, and only realizes he is without his knife when he cant take an evil spore out of his hand.

[PhelanArcetus]

Belated happy birthday, MM.

Simple answer to the 40k/Richard case study.

The 40k people who I'm too celerious to go back and get the name of are pretty clearly from what you said portrayed like so:

They feel entirely justified in xenocide and torching entire planets. They are portrayed as doing something they think is right, but nobody else, including the author and the readers, thinks it is right.

Therein lies the difference.

Richard does things that are not as clearly over-the-top evil, sure. But then, he only has one world and one race to deal with. But when Richard decrees rape, or testicle chopping, or whatever, it is portrayed by the author to the readers as Right and Good.

Sure, I'd love to be able to live by a simple moral philosophy. But I certainly haven't found a simple one that actually works. The one Tairy tries to present as actually fully applicable to real life is too simple to handle the complexities of my life, at least, and too violent to pull off in a society of law (plus I'm too scrawny). The real world is far more complex than the tailored strawman situations he sets up for Richard to solve.

[word]

Yeap. Actually, I still cant believe WFR is the best book of the entire series, since I didnt even finished it because of how bad it is.

Banishing Fire? That was one of the most stupid things I?ve ever saw in any book.

The best part about the banishing the fire thing is that first Michael gives his speech about the evils of fire...and then literally an hour later Kahlan is telling Dick about Darken Rahl and how he banned fire in the Midlands, yet somehow Dick never realizes Michael is working with Darken Rahl. I'm pretty sure any person with half a brain could've made that connection in like three seconds.

Myshkin - happy fucking birthday, and don't bitch about me being 10 hours late because I don't give a fuck. Fucker.

[Padreic]

but that he can so casually write his Confessors ordering the deaths of their male offspring without any sense of injustice tells me that he's probably not opposed to the practice in theory.

Now that is hilarious. Read a little too much of that tairy-objectivism-reasoning, hm?

[Jaxom 1974]

I think the series first jumped the shark when Micheal gave the impassioned and moving speech about banning fire. This happened within the first 100 pages of the first book.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the series jumped the shark ast this exact moment:

"It was an odd-looking vine." - WFR

[word]

What about "I wonder what's bothering the chickens".

[Jaxom 1974]

What about "I wonder what's bothering the chickens".

Icing on the cake that had already gone beyond stale and crunchy.

SIDE BAR: I think the chickens might take over like this... or at least it's what was in TG's mind I'm thinking...

[Muttering Bill]

Now that is hilarious. Read a little too much of that tairy-objectivism-reasoning, hm?

Hey, I told you it was wildly speculative. What'd you expect? Did you want it to make sense too? You people are far too demanding of me.

[WLU]

Nice post, WLU.

I rule, now where's my naked pictures?

I found some of his ideas in SoT very promising: The Confessors' powers, the 'hierarchy by hair length', the magic wall, hell, even the chciken-that-was-not-a-chicken sounded promising to me. Of course, by the time TG wrote it out, it somehow all fell flat . Kahlan's powers seem to go on and off for some strange reason at convenient times (I think I would have preferred that Richard NOT be immune to her touch or at least can still be affected by it when Kahlan orgasms), and the chicken-that-was-not-a-chicken became probably one of the most ridiculous and overdramatic plot point in the history of fiction.

He gives himself that 'I do IHT, not world-building' out, but it's bullshit to me, just laziness. Really, if he wanted to do IHT without world-building, he should have done a series of separate stories, even in the same world, not use the same characters in the same narrative. Failing to follow-up on his ideas means he doesn't have the attention span to be a good author, just a lazy one.

GoldenPanda - you're reading the thread as I write this, continue to write if you like, but your ideas might be better received if you thought them through a bit more thoroughly. Or, just follow the lemming-like mocking of the thread. A serious dialogue on this thread is a good thing, but it'll be better received if it's a bit more thought out. Also, a read through of the last five or so GK threads is probably helpful.

God I sound like the Yeard himself. Funny, I became constipated today. Wonder if there's a relationship...

Edited for auto-douchebaggery.

[GoldenPanda]

Belated happy birthday, MM.

Simple answer to the 40k/Richard case study.

The 40k people who I'm too celerious to go back and get the name of are pretty clearly from what you said portrayed like so:

They feel entirely justified in xenocide and torching entire planets. They are portrayed as doing something they think is right, but nobody else, including the author and the readers, thinks it is right.

Therein lies the difference.

Richard does things that are not as clearly over-the-top evil, sure. But then, he only has one world and one race to deal with. But when Richard decrees rape, or testicle chopping, or whatever, it is portrayed by the author to the readers as Right and Good.

Sure, I'd love to be able to live by a simple moral philosophy. But I certainly haven't found a simple one that actually works. The one Tairy tries to present as actually fully applicable to real life is too simple to handle the complexities of my life, at least, and too violent to pull off in a society of law (plus I'm too scrawny). The real world is far more complex than the tailored strawman situations he sets up for Richard to solve.

Yeah, i kinda lost that whole 40k argument thing, didn't come out quite as i wanted =(

I will do better though

As for the rape as punishment, i'm not even going to try and touch that one. wouldn't win it, not even going to try. That's not justice, its just revenge and stuff.

Anyway, as for the Violet/8 year old girl thing, i have given it some thought and decided that the problem is that she isn't wrote as an eight year old girl, she certainly seems older as a character. However i am still prepared to accept that if there is such a person as evil as Violet that was a real eight year old, such actions 'maybe not this particular one, as its kind of thing like the rape-as-pinishment' as to lead to ones escape may be permissible, but i don't approve of 8 year old beatings in general. is that kinda acceptible? Essentially its his fault for writing the character too old. hey, hmmm... ok, i'm not really carrying the Terry is good argument here.

As for the fire thigh, i always took that as his clumsy form of foreshadowing, didn't get the gun control bit until i read your threads. was that ever explicitly stated anywhere? can't remeber, there were a lot of your threads...

as for my spelling, i can spell, but i cant type, have fat fingers, and am too lazy to correct much =( (plus i was very drunk first post, cant hold my liquor i fear)

sooo, hmmm. not doing so well on the Violet bit, and in my head i had an argument that wasn't totally awful... peace protesters? hmmm. i need a better argument there. aha. almost-rapes.

Sure it's sloppy writing, but then i see our good friend George likes his almost rapes, look at Brienne and all the times she's been threatened with it =) he also likes his real rapes, such as Tyrions first wife, and the inkeepers daughter Gregor and his men molested. Is it merely he writes them incessantly that annoys you so? Or is there a deeper problem?

I'm still thinking... one day i will make one of you reconsider just one point, and i'll be happy.

edit: oh, and while your parody is very fun Min, its very similar to terrys fans using the Bran/Jaime comparison. in that it doesn't relate closely enough to the argument. edit2: on a reread i see its actually closer, but again, the situation is still a bit different to the situation Richard is in. but i can see unless i get a better argument i'm kinda outgunned here so will accede defeat reasonably graciously =(

hmmm, you know, its amazing just how alike the two sides of this argument are

[Muttering Bill]

ok, i'm not really carrying the Terry is good argument here.

Yeah, your arguments are even sloppier than mine.

But hey, at least you've cheered me up for it.

[GoldenPanda]

Yeah, your arguments are even sloppier than mine.

But hey, at least you've cheered me up for it.

hey i try =) oddly enough, the only reason i read the books after Faith of the Fallen was becuase of these threads. then i found myself enjoying them, to my shock! so i thought it was only fair to try and defend Terry from your depredations, with the only thing that i have, which is poorly phrased arguments, stupid comparisons and i may even have to start throwing out reverse paroidies.

as the great man says. Cut.

edit: don't let that fool you into thinking i'm not trying to convince you of the errors of your ways. becuase i surely am!

[Muttering Bill]

However, his books have gone from mediocre (WFR) to bleh (SoTF) to fucking dumb and filled with unnecessary speeches and postulation on how bad religion/hippies/commies are.

This makes me want to re-think my decision to finish the series. SotF was only "bleh?" I'm no longer sure that I really need to know how much worse it can get.

[Muttering Bill]

Double posting because I choose life. (And because I'm gaining on word in post count - else I might have just used edit.)

hey i try =) oddly enough, the only reason i read the books after Faith of the Fallen was becuase of these threads. then i found myself enjoying them, to my shock! so i thought it was only fair to try and defend Terry from your depredations, with the only thing that i have, which is poorly phrased arguments, stupid comparisons and i may even have to start throwing out reverse paroidies.

as the great man says. Cut.

It seems to me that, perhaps, all you're really trying to say is that if you can filter out all of the O'ist drivel, build up a tolerance for melon-sized plot holes, and ignore all of the good ideas that he forgets to develop... Then Tairy is a decent guilty pleasure sort of read?

I think you may have found a better reception if you'd said that to begin with. Or were you actually trying to defend the Yeard himself?

[word]

Well to be fair, when I first read the books that was way I saw them. I just kinda read them because it was a easy read, and I subconsciously kinda glossed over all the things that makes it awful (chicken that isn't a chicken, eating testicles, rape = good, etc.).

As for the double posting...when I double posted like last thread and wrote "double posting is for real men" that was an accidental double post having to do with lag issues. I did not realize that it would start a wave of purposeful double posting. I am not sure what the rules are in this forum but I really would appreciate it if everybody just edited their posts rather than using some variation of "i choose life/death and double post" or "I double posted cuz I'm a real man". Just edit the last one it's a lot easier and less annoying. Not trying to anger anybody, but if you do get angry fuck you. Unless you are writing a really really long post and have to split it up like WLU did a couple times in a previous thread, I would ask you to just edit your previous posts. Thanks, and have a bad day.

[Jaxom 1974]

Well to be fair, when I first read the books that was way I saw them. I just kinda read them because it was a easy read, and I subconsciously kinda glossed over all the things that makes it awful (chicken that isn't a chicken, eating testicles, rape = good, etc.).

That is the true evil of TG. His writing is so pedestrian and simple, that it's easy to just consume and not actually think about what you're reading. Then before you know it, you're brainwashed by the subtle message through the first few books so that the hammer of the later ones' messages don't seem so bad...

As for the double posting...when I double posted like last thread and wrote "double posting is for real men" that was an accidental double post having to do with lag issues. I did not realize that it would start a wave of purposeful double posting. I am not sure what the rules are in this forum but I really would appreciate it if everybody just edited their posts rather than using some variation of "i choose life/death and double post" or "I double posted cuz I'm a real man". Just edit the last one it's a lot easier and less annoying. Not trying to anger anybody, but if you do get angry fuck you. Unless you are writing a really really long post and have to split it up like WLU did a couple times in a previous thread, I would ask you to just edit your previous posts. Thanks, and have a bad day.

Double posting happens. It's not that bad. But to double post and think it means "choosing life"? You're just wrong. So wrong. That's another trap. Don't be that guy, man. Don't be that guy.

[GoldenPanda]

Double posting because I choose life. (And because I'm gaining on word in post count - else I might have just used edit.)

It seems to me that, perhaps, all you're really trying to say is that if you can filter out all of the O'ist drivel, build up a tolerance for melon-sized plot holes, and ignore all of the good ideas that he forgets to develop... Then Tairy is a decent guilty pleasure sort of read?

I think you may have found a better reception if you'd said that to begin with. Or were you actually trying to defend the Yeard himself?

well, yeah that kind of sums it up. but then i like impossible tasks. i shall defend Terry as best as i am able. after all, someone has to!

[WLU]

Anyway, as for the Violet/8 year old girl thing, i have given it some thought and decided that the problem is that she isn't wrote as an eight year old girl, she certainly seems older as a character. However i am still prepared to accept that if there is such a person as evil as Violet that was a real eight year old, such actions 'maybe not this particular one, as its kind of thing like the rape-as-pinishment' as to lead to ones escape may be permissible, but i don't approve of 8 year old beatings in general. is that kinda acceptible? Essentially its his fault for writing the character too old. hey, hmmm... ok, i'm not really carrying the Terry is good argument here.

The problem is the uneven treatment of if 'evil' is inherent or learned, is it based on actions, intentions, or (as seems to be the case) who is doing it. It's the contradictions in Tairy's writings, along with his trumpeting of his own horn that are so aggravating. Along with sloppy world-building, poor plotting, sub-par writing and gratuitous use of explicit sex and violence. Oh, and cardboard characters.

As for the fire thigh, i always took that as his clumsy form of foreshadowing, didn't get the gun control bit until i read your threads. was that ever explicitly stated anywhere? can't remeber, there were a lot of your threads...

I've never seen Tairy explicitly make the link, though it was made explicit here.

as for my spelling, i can spell, but i cant type, have fat fingers, and am too lazy to correct much =( (plus i was very drunk first post, cant hold my liquor i fear)

a) Posting while drunk is a skill mastered only by those of high celerity and experience

Perhaps consider using a typing wand

c) Perhaps consider using the backspace key. Or firefox, which has a built-in spell check. Though that won't help you for things like manor and manner, bate and bait.

sooo, hmmm. not doing so well on the Violet bit, and in my head i had an argument that wasn't totally awful... peace protesters? hmmm. i need a better argument there. aha. almost-rapes.

There isn't one. Riding down peace protestors to save a bit of time is absurd, as is peace protestors suddenly turning into a mob of vicious in-fighters.

Sure it's sloppy writing, but then i see our good friend George likes his almost rapes, look at Brienne and all the times she's been threatened with it =) he also likes his real rapes, such as Tyrions first wife, and the inkeepers daughter Gregor and his men molested. Is it merely he writes them incessantly that annoys you so? Or is there a deeper problem?

She was threatened once, by a single group (the Bloody Mummers) if I remember correctly. Klan has been threatened with almost-rape three times in Stone of Tears alone, in addition to twice that I remember in WFR. The use of rape in ASOIAF is much more in keeping with a morally ambiguous world, with 'good' characters (the Dothraki) raping in addition to bad. The action is seen as the problem, not the person. In Tairyland, the person and the problem are interchangeable, because certain people are just unredeemably evil and you can tell by a writing technique that is less subtle than a tall black hat, mustache and a cape. There's no ambiguity - Richard is right. Always. Even when he's cutting down innocent peace protestors, eight-year-old girls and Baka Ban Mak or whatever they're called. He's continuously killing, despite a professed reluctance to kill. The blame isn't for the characters, it's for the author, who keeps putting his characters in absurd situations which 'force' them to kill. That's what annoys me, the endless, repetitive absurdity. And I haven't even touched on how Klan's attackers appear to be continuously handed the plot equivalent of 'Confessor condoms'.

I'm still thinking... one day i will make one of you reconsider just one point, and i'll be happy.

I will be to, because that means we'll have been wrong and it's possible that Tairy isn't the douchebag monster he appears to be.

hmmm, you know, its amazing just how alike the two sides of this argument are

I don't see it.

It seems to me that, perhaps, all you're really trying to say is that if you can filter out all of the O'ist drivel, build up a tolerance for melon-sized plot holes, and ignore all of the good ideas that he forgets to develop... Then Tairy is a decent guilty pleasure sort of read?

Tairy isn't a guilty pleasure - even for pure plot, you're still slogging through tedious, low-quality prose and improbable story. It's actively painful to read.

I think you may have found a better reception if you'd said that to begin with. Or were you actually trying to defend the Yeard himself?

No-one can defend the Yeard himself except Chuck Norris.

As for the double posting...when I double posted like last thread and wrote "double posting is for real men" that was an accidental double post having to do with lag issues. I did not realize that it would start a wave of purposeful double posting. I am not sure what the rules are in this forum but I really would appreciate it if everybody just edited their posts rather than using some variation of "i choose life/death and double post" or "I double posted cuz I'm a real man". Just edit the last one it's a lot easier and less annoying. Not trying to anger anybody, but if you do get angry fuck you. Unless you are writing a really really long post and have to split it up like WLU did a couple times in a previous thread, I would ask you to just edit your previous posts. Thanks, and have a bad day.

Methinks double-posting'll be reserved for this thread alone as a one-off joke. And who are you to tell me what to do? Huh? Is your name Richard? I DON'T THINK SO!!!!

[WLU]

That is the true evil of TG. His writing is so pedestrian and simple, that it's easy to just consume and not actually think about what you're reading. Then before you know it, you're brainwashed by the subtle message through the first few books so that the hammer of the later ones' messages don't seem so bad...

Double posting happens. It's not that bad. But to double post and think it means "choosing life"? You're just wrong. So wrong. That's another trap. Don't be that guy, man. Don't be that guy.

I am that guy. Worship me for it.

Tairy is to ethical morality as pornography is to feminism. For that matter, Tairy is to feminism as pornography is to feminism.

well, yeah that kind of sums it up. but then i like impossible tasks. i shall defend Terry as best as i am able. after all, someone has to!

If you wanted an impossible task, you sure chose a good one. I admire your optimism