The Wolf Maid Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 They brought this on themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrostar Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Wow, you guys are still doing this. I've run out of things to say about Goodkind and his books. I'm looking forward to this mini-series, if it ever gets made. There seems to have been no real info since the thing was announced. Could be a while. Looking forward to the Song of Ice and Fire TV series more, though. Well I don't think there's any question that I'm looking forward to the ASoIaF series more than to a SoT series. But apparently I now need to borrow WFR from some source so I can read the first pages of it and truly appreciate the... whatever it is that makes Goodkind so uniquely him. Incidentally, how did the people of the country of the Imperial Order bring it on themselves that they should have their country destroyed and pillaged by an invading army. As I understand things, their government is tyrannical and oppressive? It sure does suck to be a farmer in the country of the Imperial Order... Maybe I'm missing something, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzanth Posted February 3, 2008 Author Share Posted February 3, 2008 Incidentally, how did the people of the country of the Imperial Order bring it on themselves that they should have their country destroyed and pillaged by an invading army. As I understand things, their government is tyrannical and oppressive? It sure does suck to be a farmer in the country of the Imperial Order... Maybe I'm missing something, though? Nope. Richard was pissed cause they weren't rising up and revolting of their own accord even though he had made two big marble statues to show them how. Since they didn't deserve life (displayed by kowtowing and worshiping him three times a day) they clearly deserved death and thats what he sent them. Circumstances really don't matter in the Objectovist view of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus Niven Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Silly, silly Elrostar. The Imperial Order's subjects brought it on themselves by living under Jagang's rule and materially contributing to the war effort, rather than, say, rising up in revolt. Many of them even dare to believe in the Order's teachings and give moral support to the soldiers at the front. Of course they must die. Besides, noncombatants aren't going to be harmed in this campaign. Only those who dare to resist the destruction of their homes and livelihoods will be killed. The rest will merely suffer the destruction of all their property and be driven into the wilderness, where they will variously starve to death and die from disease, dehydration, and exposure, which is not the responsibility of the D'Haran troops at all. - The really scary thing about that is that not only does it still work if you replace "Imperial Order" with "United States" and "D'Hara" with "Al Qaeda", it actually makes more sense. After all, the basis for the whole American system of government is supposed to be that the government acts as the representative of the people, which would make the people responsible for what the government does. If it's justifiable to assault the civilian population of a dictatorship because of the government's actions, surely it's justifiable to do the same to a democracy. Tairy, of course, attempts to sidestep the issue by claiming that Richard and his D'Harans are fighting for good, whereas Al Qaeda is fighting for evil. The goodness or badness of an action depends on who does it, not the action itself. Which, aside from being extremely disturbing, makes Richard a hypocritical liar. He spent about three books railing at the Imperial Order on the grounds that their actions were so intrinsically evil that they could not possibly be good, whatever ideals they claimed to hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzanth Posted February 3, 2008 Author Share Posted February 3, 2008 Besides, noncombatants aren't going to be harmed in this campaign. Only those who dare to resist the destruction of their homes and livelihoods will be killed. The rest will merely suffer the destruction of all their property and be driven into the wilderness, where they will variously starve to death and die from disease, dehydration, and exposure, which is not the responsibility of the D'Haran troops at all. I'm pretty sure the plan was to kill everyone. I mean, from Richards point of view there really were no noncombatants, as you were contributing to the IO just by living there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus Niven Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 No, I distinctly recall a bit of Richard's speech ordering that people living in the targeted cities should be given a chance to abandon their homes and flee, and not killed unless they fought back. What would happen to them afterwards was apparently of no concern to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecchi-Oni Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Wonder how many days would Richard's kill squads survive in a hostile land with no logistics support. I'd say a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mashiara Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 The really scary thing about that is that not only does it still work if you replace "Imperial Order" with "United States" and "D'Hara" with "Al Qaeda", it actually makes more sense. After all, the basis for the whole American system of government is supposed to be that the government acts as the representative of the people, which would make the people responsible for what the government does. If it's justifiable to assault the civilian population of a dictatorship because of the government's actions, surely it's justifiable to do the same to a democracy. Tairy, of course, attempts to sidestep the issue by claiming that Richard and his D'Harans are fighting for good, whereas Al Qaeda is fighting for evil. The goodness or badness of an action depends on who does it, not the action itself. So are we going to give Terry credit for reading the current world situation correctly and trying to force the US government's policy on unsuspecting young minds? (or not so young, I guess?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrostar Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Umm... I'm just kind of speechless, I guess. It seems difficult to tell who are the good guys and who are the bad guys based on their actions. It's a good thing that the author states so unequivocally who is good and who is bad. Otherwise we might lose our moral compass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus Niven Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 So are we going to give Terry credit for reading the current world situation correctly and trying to force the US government's policy on unsuspecting young minds? (or not so young, I guess?) I don't know that "credit" is quite the right word... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pita Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Mr T(Tairy) pities the fool who has a moral compass. We're all fools. Fools to serve the book-reading ways of George R R Martin, Scott Bakker, and Joe Abercrombie. Fools to not understand the evil ways of communism. Fools to believe that idiotic things like "shades of gray" and "subjective morality" and "Richard isn't always right". We are all fools. These authors we read have lied to us about the true nature of the world. They do not educate us nearly as well as Terry Goodkind does. Even his name tells us more. Goodkind is God's Child in German (Yes, I did the research). And if we are not to trust someone whose name itself tells us how great he is, how can we say we know the works of the world? How can we truly say that life is subjective when it is not? There are no contradictions, because they do not make sense. One's decisions, when taken to extremes, are evil, as Terry Goodkind has so profoundly shown us in The Imperial Order, whose very name implies a need for monarchy, something which we all know is evil, shows this, when their ideas, good and benevolent ideas, are corrupted by the actions they take to utilize these ideas, mistaken of the true, good, and kind notion behind their ideas. Richard shows us the truth, in ways beyond brilliant. We must conform to singularity, as Terry Goodkind himself has told us, or what sort of people are we? Ok, I'm sorry, Enigma, but this was REALLY easy. I only decided on the font in the end, not when I was writing it. I was actually thinking of an april fools-ish joke where I say "And you guys really believed I was renouncing lemmminghood." I'm a horrible person... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shining Enigma Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 If this was indeed directed to me (something which I find truly incredible), then I can only conclude that at the time of its conception, you were in an especially bitter mood. This, I can sympathize with. It does not, in any way, lower my view of the way in which you - as an individual - have chosen to progress along your path, percieving it to be the right one; that being said, you should probably denounce rather than 'renounce' this...'lemminghood' (or Lemming-ism). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriele Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Goodkind is God's Child in German Kind is child indeed, but the German word for god is Gott, not Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Storm Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 You have too remember, that Richard was a forest ranger, so he knows all about war, philosophy, and how to run a kingdom so anybody that disagrees with him is therefor evil and needs to be destroyed. Why cannot you all see that he would be a perfect world leader and the best male model ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriele Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Why cannot you all see that he would be a perfect world leader and the best male model ever. Please don't tell me he looks like Fabio on top of everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Storm Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Please don't tell me he looks like Fabio on top of everything else. Haven't you seen the cover art, or read some of the descriptions of Richard? He is tall, muscular, long flowing black hair, neatly trimmed beard, and flashing eyes; he is also very caring, compassionate, and loving. Maybe not Fabio because he has dark hair though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriele Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 I've only read halfway through the first book, and I try very had to exorcise that experience from my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Storm Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Do not blame you for that, I have read most of them because I am a glutton for punishment I guess. I did not hate the first two that much I did not have a lot to compare them with then, now I can see why people hate the books. Yes, all of the heroes look like models esp the main two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriele Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Oh, I have no problem with good looking characters. But I want them to have a brain as well, and Fabio doesn't look like he has more than two braincells. I forgot about Richard's looks. Part of my therapy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Storm Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 I do not like it when every good guy looks like a model and is never wrong about everything, and when every bad guy is a coward and ugly. In Goodkind's world, almost every character fall into these categories. Bad guys are sniveling cowards while the good guys could fight 1000 bad guys without being the least bit afraid or worried. I think Richard could destroy an entire army without messing up hid hair, and explain how they were evil because they did not see the world the way he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.