Jump to content

Goodkind XXXVI. Moral pie with celery sauce


Gabriele

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Foreverlad' post='1290202' date='Mar 27 2008, 11.47']So to answer your question, it happened when Tairy got tired of explaining why Dick does what he does.[/quote]
excuse me?
Dick/Tairy is ALWAYS explaining at length why he is right. You may have developed a blind spot for the speeches but it is during those diarrhea crapfests that he explains why his actions are right. Just like he rallied those Bandakarians or whatever their name is to kill their innocent fellow citizins if their stupid pacifist faces stood in the way of rightious killing. Or why killing IO children is good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Exa Inova' post='1290293' date='Mar 27 2008, 08.02']excuse me?
Dick/Tairy is ALWAYS explaining at length why he is right. You may have developed a blind spot for the speeches but it is during those diarrhea crapfests that he explains why his actions are right. Just like he rallied those Bandakarians or whatever their name is to kill their innocent fellow citizins if their stupid pacifist faces stood in the way of rightious killing. Or why killing IO children is good.[/quote]

I don't know Exa, it seemed like Dick eventually stopped explaining why he was right and spent more time explaining why everyone else was wrong. It was a lot easier to throw the first stones (and brain the commies) than build a house out of them.

If I could remember a single "What you need to understand is..." then I'd be in total agreement, but it's far easier to remember "they want to steal and have buttsecks and give everything away" type of diatribes.

It was easier to talk about what was wrong than why anything was proper.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1289759' date='Mar 27 2008, 11.51']This is exactly the point I've been trying to make to Mystar for over a year now. Had Dick shown any remorse for his actions I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Had Dick admitted that he had allowed his anger and frustration to get the better of him I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Had Dick at least allowed that his actions were perhaps not the noblest in nature I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But Dick didn't do any of those things, instead he proclaimed his actions as the only Good and Right actions possible.[/quote]

I'll go you a step further Myshkin. I'm quite happy with Richard never admitting that there was anything questionable about his actions, after all there is something quite interesting about a character who uses moral righteousness to mask his repressed doubts and regrets. All I ask for is a suggestion, somewhere in the text that there might be a serious moral question there--a comment from another (preferably one who isn't an evil commie pinko and there assumed to be innately wrong in everything they say), some hint to the deep subconscious self-loathing that Richard must be masking. It's not Richard's inability to see the shitty things he does that bothers me, it's that it is an inalienable property of Goodkind's world that Richard is never wrong on moral questions, and that the entire book is written this way.

The speed of light, the charge of an electron, Richard's moral celery: it is upon these properties that worlds are built.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Gold Storm' post='1290464' date='Mar 28 2008, 02.44']Why would Richard ever question his actions he is a battle wizard the one true hope for the world, so anything he ever does is great because he cannot be wrong ever.[/quote]

Yes, exactly. Richard defines morality. We have known for some time that given even the most hopelessly complex ethical question, one has only to pause, take a deep breath and ask oneself, what would Richard do, and all shall be made clear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was the bit when Dick decided he wasn't a veggie after all? That removed the last suggestions that he might feel some kind of remorse for the people he's killed. After that, his every act is totally justified and he doesn't even have to worry about atoning for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Minot Donoir' post='1290540' date='Mar 28 2008, 03.26']When was the bit when Dick decided he wasn't a veggie after all? That removed the last suggestions that he might feel some kind of remorse for the people he's killed. After that, his every act is totally justified and he doesn't even have to worry about atoning for it.[/quote]

That was Nekkid Empire and the whole DESERVE VICTORY bit. The point being that killing people and balancing it out by not eating meat is all well and good for commie pinko death-choosers like you and me, but it does kind of suggest that there was something morally ambiguous about the killing in the first place. Since Richard is our happy slaughterer we know that there can't be anything questionable about the matter and as such the need to balance the killing is not only unnecessary, but is in fact actively blasphemous. This argument is presented in the book almost verbatim (except for the part about Richard being morally infallible, but it is implied and I think it would have to inserted into any kind of formal logic if the argument is to make any kind of sense, otherwise its all just half-arsery and guess work and that isn't very objective now, is it?)

There is but one sin, doubting Richard, and even Richard may be guilty of it. I think that's the wizard's eighteen bazillionth rule.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Will' post='1290563' date='Mar 27 2008, 11.39']That was Nekkid Empire and the whole DESERVE VICTORY bit. The point being that killing people and balancing it out by not eating meat is all well and good for commie pinko death-choosers like you and me, but it does kind of suggest that there was something morally ambiguous about the killing in the first place. Since Richard is our happy slaughterer we know that there can't be anything questionable about the matter and as such the need to balance the killing is not only unnecessary, but is in fact actively blasphemous. This argument is presented in the book almost verbatim (except for the part about Richard being morally infallible, but it is implied and I think it would have to inserted into any kind of formal logic if the argument is to make any kind of sense, otherwise its all just half-arsery and guess work and that isn't very objective now, is it?)

There is but one sin, doubting Richard, and even Richard may be guilty of it. I think that's the wizard's eighteen bazillionth rule.[/quote]

Were Terry Goodkind not my God, you would be Will. Well done.

The best part about not eating meat is the fact that it all started tasting funny back in book one. He stopped eating it when he realized it pretty much disgusted him. Of course, this was before he learned that the food was a balance with the killing. Without being told (the wizard's first rule) Dick knew he couldn't eat meat anymore. It's not something he decided to believe, it wasn't something he deduced on his own, it was something natural rising up within him. So somewhere on the typewritten manuscript of Nekkid Empire, there's a huge splooge-stain marking the place where Tairy had his Nekkid epiphany and decided Dick could chow down on meat again.

Even better? Before Dick realized he could eat meat again, he ran nonstop for something like 2 days because he was dying.

NIKE!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But don't you get it? This is why the books sell so well. In a world of Postmodern doubt, when the hero is always in question, and the correct action is never easy to discern, people want something to point to and say "surely this is sure." This is why G. W. Bush was able to be somewhat successful in his presidential campaigns. He stuck by what he said and he believed in himself. He was also an oaf. but that is besides the point. People will follow an oaf/woods guide as long as he is sure enough of himself to quell the self doubts in the people's own hearts. People will come out in mass numbers to read a book that claims moral supremacy because then they at least don't have to worry about why they can't find a moral philosophy to live their lives by.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, W1stR is "People are stupid." NOT "People are sheep." Raaacharg just intuitively knows this and thus commands the faithful. And still... I don;t want to go as far as say PEOPLE, that is far too general. How about "AMERICANS are lazy and prefer for some other person to think for them." But then again, Americans is too general. How about, the typical target consumer is lazy.

Eh, wtf.... who the hell cares. A lot of people ARE stupid. And it doesn't take standing a rock masturbating to cloud formations to be able to figure it out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Will' post='1290447' date='Mar 27 2008, 08.35']I'll go you a step further Myshkin. I'm quite happy with Richard never admitting that there was anything questionable about his actions, after all there is something quite interesting about a character who uses moral righteousness to mask his repressed doubts and regrets. All I ask for is a suggestion, somewhere in the text that there might be a serious moral question there--a comment from another (preferably one who isn't an evil commie pinko and there assumed to be innately wrong in everything they say), some hint to the deep subconscious self-loathing that Richard must be masking. It's not Richard's inability to see the shitty things he does that bothers me, it's that it is an inalienable property of Goodkind's world that Richard is never wrong on moral questions, and that the entire book is written this way.[/quote]
After re-reading my post I see where I went wrong. I should have said: Had [i]Tairy[/i] allowed that Dick's actions were perhaps not the noblest in nature I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But Tairy didn't do any of those things, instead he proclaimed Dick's actions as the only Good and Right actions possible.

I have no problems with morally ambiguous characters. In fact I think Dick could have been a GREAT character if he had been written as a morally ambiguous character. But instead he was written as the paragon of all that is Good and Right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just found [url="http://phelan.ath.cx:3771/%7Ephelan/cgi-bin/tairylib.cgi"]this[/url] again. Good times!

[quote]Dick and Klan are walking around in their hotpants brewing antidotes to poisons based on the taste. Suddenly a war breaks out. 37 members of the Imperial Order are preparing to attack them. Richard's thing rises and they all die with melon-sized holes punched in their chests. Kahlan is kidnapped and almost-raped by some guy we've never heard of before... who's another brother of Richard but is saved at the last moment by confessorizing someone to fight the rapist. While searching for his True Love, Richard finds a village full of people who are vegetarians. Richard makes a speech that goes on for 5 pages and the villagers all abandon their individuality commie pinko ways to help him find Kahlan. Richard finds the evil villain who attacks him with pheasants. When it looks like Richard is about to lose Nathan shows up and wins for Richard. Richard and Kahlan go off and discuss the price of tea in China while the war continues to be ignored. Next volume: Richard and Kahlan make an unjustifiable decision, but circumstances conspire via authorial fiat to make it perfectly justified.[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember reading an interview of Tairy once when someone asked if he approved of people playing web based RPGs based off of the SoT universe. I remember him going off like he was Howard Roark(is that his name?) from the fountainhead about how the SoT was his, he worked for it, and he doesn't want some punks to mess it up....

And now Tairy realized that this stance no longer mattered, sold the rights to Disney, and is eagerly awaiting the flop of his philosophic cock sucking diatribe performed in his own image.


I think I made myself clear enough.....

but yeah, what happened to doing things your way tairy? Did you sell out a little? Or did Ayn Rand offer you forgiveness for massaging her decayed scrotum?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='respectabull' post='1291290' date='Mar 27 2008, 22.24']I remember reading an interview of Tairy once when someone asked if he approved of people playing web based RPGs based off of the SoT universe. I remember him going off like he was Howard Roark(is that his name?) from the fountainhead about how the SoT was his, he worked for it, and he doesn't want some punks to mess it up....

And now Tairy realized that this stance no longer mattered, sold the rights to Disney, and is eagerly awaiting the flop of his philosophic cock sucking diatribe performed in his own image.


I think I made myself clear enough.....

but yeah, what happened to doing things your way tairy? Did you sell out a little? Or did Ayn Rand offer you forgiveness for massaging her decayed scrotum?[/quote]


Yeah, he said the same thing about video games and everything else. I think his stance will be "I wrote the books. I own the books. No matter what is created in another medium, it does not alter the *ahem* quality of my own work."

When I was younger, I considered authors with horrible movie adaptations to be sellouts. I used to subscribe to Raymond Feist's mailing list and he'd get asked questions about 'who should play Pug in a movie version?". It got to the point where Ray said "I don't care if they cast a female to play the main male lead, as long as I'm getting paid a fortune for it." (Not a direct quote) He took the same approach. No matter how bad a movie, musical, adaptation or whathaveyou is, it cannot alter a single word that's been published between the covers of each of his works.

If you're writing the great american novel, I can understand not adapting it. Most novelists will never have that kind of choice to make though. I heard a statistic that 90+% of the authors you find in your local Barnes & Noble have a second job (or first) outside of authoring their own novels.

That's all a moot point as far as Tairy is concerned though, so I digress.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Gabriele' post='1290758' date='Mar 27 2008, 20.07']That makes me wonder if Bush read Tairy's books.[/quote]
Well he [b]does[/b] seem to be like books about pet goats, so I guess it's possible. :leaving:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='respectabull' post='1291290' date='Mar 27 2008, 22.24']I remember reading an interview of Tairy once when someone asked if he approved of people playing web based RPGs based off of the SoT universe. I remember him going off like he was Howard Roark(is that his name?) from the fountainhead about how the SoT was his, he worked for it, and he doesn't want some punks to mess it up....[/quote]

A SoT RPG?

The world he invented isn't interesting enough to merit such a thing!

Besides, ORPGs letting people play the role of Dominatrix? That would be...really really weird. Even imagining the maths behind hit-damage-per-whip-lash is weird.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shevchyk' post='1291644' date='Mar 28 2008, 07.29']A SoT RPG?

The world he invented isn't interesting enough to merit such a thing!

Besides, ORPGs letting people play the role of Dominatrix? That would be...really really weird. Even imagining the maths behind hit-damage-per-whip-lash is weird.[/quote]

Think of a SoT RPG as A digital, playable version of American Psycho. Rich Wall Street moneymaker going around viciously killing people because it's what he needs to do. Only difference is the creator defends his character's actions because of his philosophy.

Replace the chainsaw with a sword, and voila, Sword of Truth videogame.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shevchyk' post='1291644' date='Mar 28 2008, 23.29']A SoT RPG?

The world he invented isn't interesting enough to merit such a thing!

Besides, ORPGs letting people play the role of Dominatrix? That would be...really really weird. Even imagining the maths behind hit-damage-per-whip-lash is weird.[/quote]

No, no, no. It would be AWESOME! Imagine taking your half-garish fighter/speechifier, making a successful saving throw verses commie brainwashing, boldly choosing to use up both your coiled fury and noble-goat familiar abilities in one last ditched battle against the centipedial army of subjectivity and prevailing only to realise that you weren't really in danger in the first place. You wouldn't use dice, but instead you would be required to make a speech on morality, your roll would be deemed to be equal to the number of whole minutes you could continue without saying something that isn't a cliche (this may not work as well in the computer edition). Think of all the great special abilities you could use, the pretend-stretch (+10 to initiative), and Rahl's Spine Ripper of Almost-Death (+1 damage and 10% chance of slowing the enemy) being just two of my favourite. And the great thing is that any time you argued with the GM [i]you[/i] would be innately right.

Alignment would also be greatly simplified I imagine.

ETA: Grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...