Foreverlad Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 And then he would claim that it was the greatest and most beautiful thing ever built, and everybody who says it's not has been indoctrinated by the cult of mediocrity! Which is what I had loved about Howard Roark's character in TF. He didn't have to preach on about why his buildings were great. He saw the (forgive me for using this word here) "truth" in his buildings and let them speak for his style, ethics and intent. It was only when he was in court or specifically asked by friends that he'd explain things. Even then, it sounded almost burdensome for him to do it. The only time he preached his ethics was when he was in court, justifying his actions. Otherwise, he didn't care if you understood him or not. Dick's just the opposite. He's telling everyone why they have to be Howard Roark and that if you're not Howard, you're the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Which is what I had loved about Howard Roark's character in TF. He didn't have to preach on about why his buildings were great. He saw the (forgive me for using this word here) "truth" in his buildings and let them speak for his style, ethics and intent. It was only when he was in court or specifically asked by friends that he'd explain things. Even then, it sounded almost burdensome for him to do it. The only time he preached his ethics was when he was in court, justifying his actions. Otherwise, he didn't care if you understood him or not. Dick's just the opposite. He's telling everyone why they have to be Howard Roark and that if you're not Howard, you're the enemy. Yes, Howard Roark was a failure as a character. Thank god Ayn Rand got it right latter with John Galt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreverlad Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Yes, Howard Roark was a failure as a character. Thank god Ayn Rand got it right latter with John Galt! Who is John Galt? :bow: heh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Who is John Galt? :bow: heh I'm pretty sure that I am John Galt. But don't quote me on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreverlad Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 I'm pretty sure that I am John Galt. But don't quote me on that. I won't. The fact that your responses and explanations aren't 54 pages long is proof positive you're one of them Imperial odor heathens, not our lord corporate savior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecchi-Oni Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Roark always annoyed me. Didn't anyone explain to the tard that the customer is always right, and if a customer wants a Victorian country house you don't sell him a postmodern greenhouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreverlad Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Roark always annoyed me. Didn't anyone explain to the tard that the customer is always right, and if a customer wants a Victorian country house you don't sell him a postmodern greenhouse. That was (in my eyes) the beauty of it. Roark was in a profession that allowed him to pick his customers. If someone wanted Victorian, he told them 'I'm not your guy'. He never went off building type B when he promised them type A. That's why he rarely went out looking for work, he let his few creations do the advertising for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Will Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 "Well, I managed to rip off RJ without the internet, imagine the kind of shitstorm I'd be brewing if I could read about other authors' works online" "Actually I managed to rip of RJ without reading RJ..." Maybe he can browse the internet psychically. The same way he read WoT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimmer Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Hate to defend him, but I've never really seen any evidence of him copying the Wheel of Time; IMO both series use a lot of fantasy cliches. The Sisters of the Dark or whatever are a pretty typical evil group of sorceresses, and 'Stone of Tears' just sounds like a coincidence to me. I mean if you really wanted to rip off another series you don't do something so obvious as pinch a direct name from it and use it as a book title. It's also possible someone from Tor suggested the name during editing as well. He says he hasn't read WOT, and while I think he's deluded in a lot of ways I'm not sure he is an outright liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Hate to defend him, but I've never really seen any evidence of him copying the Wheel of Time. The Sisters of the Dark or whatever are a pretty typical evil group of sorceresses, and 'Stone of Tears' just sounds like a coincidence to me. I mean if you really wanted to rip off another series you don't do something so obvious as pinch a direct name from it and use it as a title of a book. Guess it's possible someone from Tor suggest the name during editing as well. He says he hasn't read WOT, and while I think he's deluded in a lot of ways I'm not sure he is an outright liar. Have you read both SoT and WoT? The Sisters of the Dark were not the only thing to be ripped of. There was also The Sisters of the Light and the Blood of the Fold, amongst other things. Not to mention the dynamic between the Sisters of the Light, the Sisters of the Dark, and the Blood of the Fold: these three organizations interact with each other in exactly the same way as the Aes Sedai, the Black Ajah, and the Children of the Light. Not only would I say that Goodkind ripped off Jordan, but I would go so far as saying that the only reason Goodkind got published in the first place was because he ripped off Jordan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreverlad Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Hate to defend him, but I've never really seen any evidence of him copying the Wheel of Time; IMO both series use a lot of fantasy cliches. The Sisters of the Dark or whatever are a pretty typical evil group of sorceresses, and 'Stone of Tears' just sounds like a coincidence to me. I mean if you really wanted to rip off another series you don't do something so obvious as pinch a direct name from it and use it as a book title. It's also possible someone from Tor suggested the name during editing as well. He says he hasn't read WOT, and while I think he's deluded in a lot of ways I'm not sure he is an outright liar. When I was reading his work, I had my doubts about it as well. The more research I did though, the more I started to believe the complaints. Tairry was reading fantasy as a kid (up until who knows when). When someone told his favorite teacher Tairy had published a fantasy book her response had been something along the lines of "well of course he did". I only read the first 3 or 4 WoT books, and it was years before I found the SoT, but the coincidences that stuck out in my mind: Aes Sedai <sp?> ...both kinds Power-negating collars a world where magic men were mostly gone world savior male lead char prophecy leading the main char magic is 'woven' Now please don't get me wrong. You can find this kind of stuff spread amongst thousands of books and throw into the mix by just as many authors. What's sad is that after the first 2 or 3 books where all the main Jordan comparisons come in, Tairy's world seems to lack any further development. All the rules of magic are set. Prophecy is always the sign of things to come, the collars are always holding someone back, etc. Aside from a dreamwalker and drawing crap on magical walls of a cave, and a form of football, I can't think of many fresh developments brought into the SoT series. It just seemed all creation stopped after the comparisons were made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Will Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Hate to defend him, but I've never really seen any evidence of him copying the Wheel of Time; IMO both series use a lot of fantasy cliches. The Sisters of the Dark or whatever are a pretty typical evil group of sorceresses, and 'Stone of Tears' just sounds like a coincidence to me. I mean if you really wanted to rip off another series you don't do something so obvious as pinch a direct name from it and use it as a book title. It's also possible someone from Tor suggested the name during editing as well. He says he hasn't read WOT, and while I think he's deluded in a lot of ways I'm not sure he is an outright liar. Well, put it this way: There is a palace which is home to a group of women with magical abilities. They do not age the same as regular people and it is difficult to tell what their true age is. One of their primary jobs is to find men who can use magic. When they find such a man they attempt to capture him and bring him back to their palace. All though all the women deny it, there is a secret evil sect hiding within their population. The evil ones plot to bring down the leader of the women. The plot is successful, but, although the evil ones had hoped to kill the old leader, she escapes and lives on in hiding. The new leader is a young and inexperienced sister whom everyone believes they can manipulate, but who turns out to be more cany than most expect. Look, I know that certain parts of it are standard fantasy tropes, but when you look especially at the situation with the sisters of the light/aes sedai, the setup is not just reminiscent of Jordan, it is Jordan. If most fantasy fans read the above description I don't think they'd say it was a fantasy standard which could describe many series. I think they'd say it was the Wheel of Time. The fact that it is also exactly the situation from the Sword of Truth makes me very suspicious. The thing with the blood of the fold/children of the light is almost as bad. Honestly, I thing that the Stone of Tears was a reaction against the Wheel of Time. I think GK read at least some of WoT and was so disgusted with the way that the Aes Sedai bossed everyone around that he decided to write his own version and have his hero slap his Aes Sedai down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainFireBob Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 What makes the case is the chronology- of which only those of us reading in the early to mid 90s are aware. Consider the contents of the books in time with their publication dates. Jordan releases a book. A year later- about Goodkind's writing time, considering his release schedule- Goodkind releases a book incorporating many of the same elements. In about 96 is the first time I recall the plagiarism remark, and his vehement, almost violent denial. After that, the two series begin to seriously diverge- Terry starts with his Objectivism heavily either that book or the one right after, and as noted, stops really developing the fantasy side of his books. He was obviously borrowing archetypes Jordan clearly expressed- perhaps with the intent to treat them as archetypes, but the close publication dates made it glaringly obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Will Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 What makes the case is the chronology- of which only those of us reading in the early to mid 90s are aware. Consider the contents of the books in time with their publication dates. Jordan releases a book. A year later- about Goodkind's writing time, considering his release schedule- Goodkind releases a book incorporating many of the same elements. In about 96 is the first time I recall the plagiarism remark, and his vehement, almost violent denial. After that, the two series begin to seriously diverge- Terry starts with his Objectivism heavily either that book or the one right after, and as noted, stops really developing the fantasy side of his books. He was obviously borrowing archetypes Jordan clearly expressed- perhaps with the intent to treat them as archetypes, but the close publication dates made it glaringly obvious. Actually, I think that close publication dates would be Goodkind's only real defense. If the dates were too close then he could reasonably claim that he'd started writing before Jordan's book was published. However, unfortunately for Goodkind, the Great Hunt (which is the first book which really details the Aes Sedai) was published in 94 and Stone of Tears (the first suspiciously similar book from Goodkind) came out in 96. As you say, the dates are just nicely aligned. The fact that Blood of the Fold (Goodkind's other slightly suspicious book) didn't come out until 97 means that he didn't take the plagiarism allegations to heart until two years later (if he ever did). After Blood of the Fold things diverged pretty widely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pita Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 .. I've never heard of this Roark... Is he an Ayn Rand character? Wolf Maid used my title but made it better! Me so happy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecchi-Oni Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 .. I've never heard of this Roark... Is he an Ayn Rand character? Wolf Maid used my title but made it better! Me so happy! Roark is the main character douchebag of the fountainhead, one the less revolting Ayn Rand books, but it still made be puke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Maid Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 .. I've never heard of this Roark... Is he an Ayn Rand character? Wolf Maid used my title but made it better! Me so happy! I hope this discourages people from buying the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 I was looking around at the other TG website (the one I'm still able to access) and I saw that even some of Tairy's own fantards were insulted by his latest crapterpiece. You see, the problem seems to be Tairy's not so subtle jab at religion at the end of the book. You remember, Ol' Dick creates a new world for all the evil people where they promptly begin to build churches and spread the faith. Some fans didn't seem to take that too well. I can sympathize, as a Catholic I was very insulted by the description of the IO in "Faith of the Fallen". Now I respect the fact that Tairy is an atheist, and I'm perfectly fine with him putting atheist ideals into his novels, but doing so by insulting all religion (because it's not just my crazy sect this was aimed at) was out of line. Anyway, just thought I throw out this talking point since our thread seems to be moving rather slowly. So discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimmer Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Yeah you guys are probably right, I dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreverlad Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 I was looking around at the other TG website (the one I'm still able to access) and I saw that even some of Tairy's own fantards were insulted by his latest crapterpiece. You see, the problem seems to be Tairy's not so subtle jab at religion at the end of the book. You remember, Ol' Dick creates a new world for all the evil people where they promptly begin to build churches and spread the faith. Some fans didn't seem to take that too well. I can sympathize, as a Catholic I was very insulted by the description of the IO in "Faith of the Fallen". Now I respect the fact that Tairy is an atheist, and I'm perfectly fine with him putting atheist ideals into his novels, but doing so by insulting all religion (because it's not just my crazy sect this was aimed at) was out of line. Anyway, just thought I throw out this talking point since our thread seems to be moving rather slowly. So discuss. I mentioned my own distaste for the ending of Confessor, and I'm pretty much an atheist. I knew I was surrounded by the wrong kind of people when I started seeing the responses to my posts. I think I posted 3 times at goodkind.com before I stopped. I'm post 187 on page 4 (for those of you who can/want to see it). I read one or two responses to my post and just gave up entirely. http://www.prophets-inc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8912 I don't much care what anyone believes about anything. Your life, your beliefs. When I saw the way Tairy handled the finale though, I was disgusted. Aside from turning Dick into a literal deus ex machina, Tairy destroyed any misconception I had about his beliefs in the freedom of the individual. He's a hatemonger as far as I'm concerned, and I'm sorry his readers are managing to find the good in his work, ignoring the rest. Yes, somewhere in all the writing, people are finding good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.