No throwing tomatoes please....but I am from .Net

[drawkcabi]

[quote name='addicted' post='1399762' date='Jun 15 2008, 20.41']This is part of O'ism I have yet to agree with. I come from a very family oriented background and know that this world is much bigger than I am, and so are the daily strifes. I know that sometimes you have to ask for help and it should not be belittling to do so. I don't know if I can pin point to what you are referring, but I understand (I think) where you are coming from.

IMHO- This does stem from an axiom of O'ism. Something along the lines of receive what you achieve (paraphrasing here). Where Ayn Rand depicted worse case scenario, TG apparently treated it with contempt (though again, I can not pinpoint your ex.)

I thank you for you taking the time to reply and raising specifics, I hope my opinions offered some insight. :)[/quote]

It was hard for me to pinpoint myself at first. Like I said, I really liked Richard, but something about him also leaved me feeling depressed, I especially felt this way after "Faith of the Fallen". But it took "Naked Empire", which didn't depress me as much as exasperate me, to see what it was. TG puts the two axioms of personal responsibility and asking for help at odds with each other. Fair enough, they can be seen as opposites. However, this means in TG's world one must be "good" while the other must be "bad". I don't see it that way. I see both as being noble and both as virtues.

I'm more of a spiritual person then religious, but that doesn't mean I am completely ignorant of religious teachings. When I was younger it I was always perplexed as to why "pride" was considered a sin. The way I thought of pride was as being proud of a hard day's work, proud of something artistic you created, proud of a friend or relative. Why was this a sin? But now I understand there's another kind of pride, the pride that makes someone too obstinate to admit they were wrong, to say they are sorry, and to ask for help when they are totally and impossible in too deep. I can understand that kind of pride to be a sin.

Richard is a proud man, but he has both kinds of pride in him. The one that makes him a likable and stong person, and the other that causes him to act like a jerk.

[Werthead]

Welcome to the boards, addicted!

I haven't talked about [b]SoT[/b] or bashed it (beyond a very minor comment here and there) for a very long time now, so I was surprised to see my name still being apparently mentioned by Mystar.

However, I then remembered a recent-ish incident where Mystar turned up on the SFFWorld forum and told a pack of lies about the [b]ASoIaF[/b] TV series being canned, and then Parris (GRRM's girlfriend) and myself blew his argument apart quite thoroughly, so I'm guessing he's still smarting from that. Fair enough, except that was his own fault and it had nothing whatsoever to do with any comments at all about [b]SoT[/b].

Whilst I thoroughly dislike the series, from page 1 of WFR onwards, I would hope that wouldn't put you off reading other authors. At the end of the day, it's just people talking about books. In fact, one of my best mates whom I've known and hung out with for nearly twenty years [i]loves[/i] the [b]SoT[/b] books and we can still go down the pub together without it being an issue.

[Crazydog7]

Oh my God A Goodkind....fan? I thought they were just some awful Urban Legend like the IRS or STD?

Still a fellow Virginian so you can't be all bad :cheers:

[VigoTheCarpathian]

Hello and welcome addicted...I'm really not certain why we lemmings have such a bad reputation for a bunch of lunatics, as we're just your average bunch of people shooting our mouths off on the internet.

I sincerely doubt there will be any sort of vegetable barrage headed your way, most people are polite here, unless they're drunk. Which given our worldwide distribution, at least 25% of us are at any given moment.

I really liked your essay: I enjoy Campbell very much, and would say that the one thing that I'd say in reply is that (especially nearer the end of the series, which I've finished), Mr. Goodkind started letting the mythology aspect slip at the expense of interjecting the philosophy explicitly. I don't necessarily agree with the philosophy, but that's not a problem for me: live and let live.

However, outside of the wizards rules, I didn't like the overt (i.e. in-story speeches and discussions) philosophy, but enjoyed the "hero's quest" aspect, initially. After a point, the quest seemed (to me) not about what was occuring with the story, and each successive book was more about conveying a philosophy than conveying a story.

It's not that I don't enjoy philosophy, or when ideas are presented in a book: it's just when the story and ideas come together, they better both "make sense" to me as presented. And that's a personal preference. Where I started noticing it was FotF (obvious), but what killed off my liking of the series was NE, and the whole long debate with the Bandakar. Just killed the story for me.

Anyway: the literature section here is a great place to pick up book recommendations, especially if you're just getting into fantasy. And again, welcome!

[Fatuous]

Welcome addicted.

Now, I have read most of the series except for the last book. My biggest problem is that I can't remember what happens in each book or anything of the characters beyond Richard or Kahlan. Even the titles are extremely vague. I always had to check the copyright date to see if I read that particular book or not whenever I come across another Sword of Truth novel {Happened again last Friday at the bookstore. Hey, the last book is out. I didn't know that}.

This is rather odd for me as I have pretty good recall for both Martin and Jordan. Robert Heinlien and Stephen King. HP Lovecraft and Terry Pratchett and so on. Greek myths, Norse Myths, even Asian myths. I guess I find the Sword of Truth series to be the embodiment of mediocrity, the one that should have nothing to do with mythology.

SPOILER: GoT

You say all characters had transformations of inner truth. But wasn't it always through Richard or Kahlan's words, deeds and actions that the minor "heroes" changed? You really do need to read some Martin or Jordan. The stories of Jaime Lannister and Lan Mandragoran are real mythology in action {Once man changed because he fell in love with a woman half his age. The other changed because he pushed a young boy out of a tower window and the boy survived. There's more to it than that but this is how their journeys start and it has norhing nothing to do with the main characters or "What would the main character do?" thinking}. Song of Ice and Fire has a lot more to do with mythic concepts than even its supporters care to admit. Most of them are just in it for the intrigue, violence and sex, but those are the classic components for Greek myths. Throw in some Gods and you're there. The Wheel of Time series is both a lot simpler and far more complex: The first book flatly states that the story both builds and deconstructs "real world" myths and then people complain because of the Arthurian names and Norse/Chinese mythological references.

“Knowledge is the destination, truth is the journey.” - Terry Goodkind

I really don't like this quote. Knowledge is arbitrary. It's not a destination, it's merely part of the path to something called wisdom. I've always been knowledgable but I can't say I've always been wise. Truth is even worse as it is subjective which is something that knowledge and wisdom shouldn't be.

[Edited by Xray, as the OP hasn't read Game of Thones]

[Myshkin]

Ok, let's get down to the meat of the matter.

addicted (and any other TG fans who wish to chime in), what exactly about Terry's form of Objectivism speaks to you? What about do you [i]not[/i] like about it? Is the philosophy the main reason you enjoy his novels?

[The Stranger]

[quote name='BJ Penn' post='1399400' date='Jun 15 2008, 14.36']What, we have people on this board that purposely go to the Goodkind site just to mock his fans and instigate shit? That's kinda pathetic on our part, if that's true, and I could easily see the inevitable backlash of Goodkind fans coming over here to troll in retribution.[/quote]

In the halcyon days of the very first Goodkind thread, quite a few of us not only made a fake Goodkind site, but also went on a couple of raids to Planet Goodkind, wherein we tried to discuss Important Human Themes while also being very very snide.

This strategy was quickly drug out into the street and shot by a certain Bear God who will remain nameless.

[Space Bandito]

What kind of sad world do we live in when a Goodkind lover is treated with respect? ;)

Dump this thread in Forum games/Hell to rot. ;)

I think we need more Goodkind fans and we could have a Warriors like gang fight.

[Angalin]

Have you forgotten about the Bear God already, SB? Mighty are the claws that rule ... oops, that's Ran, isn't it. ;)

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote]From many of the comments I've read, many of the boarders here are extremely adverse to the idea of a fiction writer prioritizing putting forth his opinion in his work ahead of telling a story.[/quote]

I don't think that's it. Or at the very least, that's not all of it. As you say, an authors politics or philosophy often will come through to some extent, intentionally or otherwise. That's generally not a problem. While alot of readers are indeed averse to using fiction as a vehicle to push philosophy, that still has its place in literature. The main problem with TG is not that his work puts philosophy ahead of story and character, its that it never bothers to challenge the philosophy. Everything in the books is contrived to prove Terry/Richard right. Usually transparently and clumsily. There's a level of intellectual laziness and cowardice, or if he actually believes he's making persuasive arguments with that drivel than outright idiocy, that I find downright insulting to the reader. When the author manipulates events and characters for the sole purpose of reconfirming his own ideology than its hard to take him seriously.

What it amounts to is an author driven self-fulfilling prophecy. Weak strawmen set up for the sole purpose of being knocked down by the 'virtues' of objectivism.

[quote]I tried to highlight that "the message" or the writer's POV is, at the heart, the true controversy. While some may have issues with his "prose" or "the chicken that wasn't a chicken" it is really the message within that is disagreed with.[/quote]

The message wouldn't be a problem if it was argued effectively and fairly. And if the opposing philosophies were presented as a bit more than lame parodies or caricatures. Its not that he offers a message or that the message is bad (though it generally is), its that he delivers it poorly. The guy is barely a step above Chick Tract levels of reasoning. And the depictions of the 'other side' are equally as absurd and silly as Chick's.

Even this wouldn't be that bad if the guy didn't think he was god's gift to fantasy (though he doesn't write fantasy), philosophy, and literature all rolled into one. There are pretensions to insight and delusions of greatness that are thoroughly undeserved. Hell, delusions of competence and adequacy are undeserved.

[koudoulis]

[quote name='Fatuous' post='1399877' date='Jun 16 2008, 00.03']Welcome addicted.

Now, I have read most of the series except for the last book. My biggest problem is that I can't remember what happens in each book or anything of the characters beyond Richard or Kahlan. Even the titles are extremely vague. I always had to check the copyright date to see if I read that particular book or not whenever I come across another Sword of Truth novel {Happened again last Friday at the bookstore. Hey, the last book is out. I didn't know that}.

This is rather odd for me as I have pretty good recall for both Martin and Jordan. Robert Heinlien and Stephen King. HP Lovecraft and Terry Pratchett and so on. Greek myths, Norse Myths, even Asian myths. I guess I find the Sword of Truth series to be the embodiment of mediocrity, the one that should have nothing to do with mythology.

You say all characters had transformations of inner truth...................................

“Knowledge is the destination, truth is the journey.” - Terry Goodkind

I really don't like this quote. Knowledge is arbitrary. It's not a destination, it's merely part of the path to something called wisdom. I've always been knowledgable but I can't say I've always been wise. Truth is even worse as it is subjective which is something that knowledge and wisdom shouldn't be.[/quote]

thats a bit spoilerish Fatuous as she have already said she hasnt read A Game of thrones. fix it plz

welcome addicted

[drawkcabi]

[quote name='Il Chiarimento' post='1400022' date='Jun 16 2008, 02.31']I don't think that's it. Or at the very least, that's not all of it. As you say, an authors politics or philosophy often will come through to some extent, intentionally or otherwise. That's generally not a problem. While alot of readers are indeed averse to using fiction as a vehicle to push philosophy, that still has its place in literature. The main problem with TG is not that his work puts philosophy ahead of story and character, its that it never bothers to challenge the philosophy. Everything in the books is contrived to prove Terry/Richard right. Usually transparently and clumsily. There's a level of intellectual laziness and cowardice, or if he actually believes he's making persuasive arguments with that drivel than outright idiocy, that I find downright insulting to the reader. When the author manipulates events and characters for the sole purpose of reconfirming his own ideology than its hard to take him seriously.

What it amounts to is an author driven self-fulfilling prophecy. Weak strawmen set up for the sole purpose of being knocked down by the 'virtues' of objectivism.[/quote]

Right, that puts it more succintly than I was able to and a tad more harsh (yet no less valid) than I wanted to.

I mentioned the strawman arguments but not exactly in the same context. As I said, I could overlook this at first because I was still enjoying the story. I did find it silly and now as I look back on it, lazy, but for the first six or seven books it was "these guys are evil becuase they don't agree with my, the author's, philosophy so I will make them do very evil things" and then Richard comes along and kicks their asses. I could overlook the "laziness" of it because I was still getting satisfaction out of seeing a "hero" dish out punishment even if I did recognize the set up for the conflicts as awfully contrived. Also, maybe it was laziness on my part as a reader as well that I didn't expect more from the author until I was 8 books deep into the series and then the whole concept colapsed on me. Other readers may expect more, like for an author to challenge his philosophy, on page 1 and thus dislike the series from that very page.

[The Stranger]

[quote name='Drawkcabi' post='1399692' date='Jun 15 2008, 18.31']Hello Addicted welcome!

The chicken that was not a chicken...thought it was strange, but if a ring can be the embodiment of evil, why can't a chicken?[/quote]

because the Ring was a well-crafted centerpiece for a mythologically flawless work that has spawned an entire multibillion dollar trans-medium genre wholecloth. The chicken was a rejected idea from Muppets Tonight. next ridiculous question?

[sio]

Wow. Seriously, congrats for coming here.

Boarders! We have in our midst a brave soul. Let us honour her!

*Starts applauding*

Seriously, I think a lot of the world's problems can be solved by rational, mature discussion. So again, props.

[Muttering Bill]

Hello, addicted. I've been lurking at the .net a few times, and noticed you there. I will say that you seem to be one of the most reasonable members of that community; so if somebody was going to come over, I can't complain that it was you. But I question whether you are a good representative the average Goodkind fan (and by that I mean those that we see on the .net or at prophets). I don't know if you will be able to satisfy us "raving lunatics" in that you're not really as fanatic as some others who frequent that board.

All the same, welcome.

First off, I want to give you a little background on my own experiences with SoT. I started the series about 10 years ago - a few months before TotW was released - after finishing Jordan's WoT (what was available at the time). So most of these impressions are quite old, and my tastes seem to have changed quite a bit since. So...

WFR - I liked it. It seemed a little superficial, but was a fast-paced adventure that was easy to read.

SoT - The Jordan "influences" were very obvious and off-putting, but I still thought it was decent overall.

BotF - It was boring, and couldn't remember any of what happened a week after I'd finished it.

TotW - My favorite of the series. Though some of it seems silly now, I thought, at the time, that there were some interesting plot twists. It was also his best effort in world-building (which is something that I enjoy).

SotF - Awful! It opened with the "chicken that is not a chicken" which was just utterly ridiculous. Even forgiving that, the Chimes story might have been interesting, except that Richard and Kahlan (whom I had come to like) weren't even featured for most of the book. I was determined to finish it, and I did, but it took me two years. After that I didn't have much desire to read any fantasy for a long time.

Fast forward to a year and a half ago:

FotF - Couldn't have been good. It had some decent plot devices, but was ruined by it's peachiness.

PoC - I got bored 100 pages in.

WFR - After failing to go further in the series I thought: maybe I just need to read them again. It had been nearly 10 years after all, so I should give myself a refresher. But it was pretty bad. Story-wise it was, more or less, as I remembered, but the writing was terrible. Especially the dialogue. I made it halfway through.

I've given up on the series since, and recently threw them all in the trash (I had the first 10 in hardcover, all but two were first editions, and TotW was signed).

In the end I would call Goodkind a mediocre writer, at best. Now, in and of itself, that's not so bad. I have read poorly written books that make up for it with great stories. And I've read well written books that bored me endlessly. It's all a matter of how palatable the two things are (story and prose) together. For a while Goodkind had a decent mix, and it made his books average. But the latter half of the series he seems to have lost that (as I've not read the last 5 books, I am judging them solely on what I have "heard").

It wasn't until I started reading some of his interviews that I really got turned off. He is just so arrogant, unable to take any type of criticism, and belittling to his own fans. (Philosophical and political disagreements aside) that was when I started to really dislike him.

Now, you tell us that Goodkind isn't really as disingenuous as he comes off to be in interviews. So what has he said or done in your private chats that might make him appear to be otherwise?

Another problem that we have is the depictions of rape and violence within SoT. Not that it's there, and not even that it's done in graphic detail. That's all very common in fantasy literature these days. No, it's the way that they are depicted as always being necessary. Not only necessary, but morally justifiable. To bring up a GRRM comparison: there is a lot of rape and murder in ASoIaF, but it's not presented as being right/wrong. It is neither celebrated or denigrated. It simply is; because that's how the (his) world works. And it is left to the reader to decide whether or not they were justifiable actions, or whether or not the characters responsible can still be called a "good guy" despite. But in SoT, Richard and Kahlan and Zedd will kill pretty much anyone who gets in their way, at little provocation, and with no remorse. In SoT they are presenteded justifiable actions; not just necessary, but the most appropriate way to proceed.

But it's fantasy, so whatever...

Except that it's not fantasy, rather books about "important human themes," containing some supreme moral code (from what Goodkind himelf has inferred). As such, Goodkind offers an extremely poor representation of some of some really "evil" acts - glorifying them when done by the heroes, vilifying them when by the "bad guys." Poorly represented, and contradictory besides (despite that there is supposedly no such thing as a contradiction).

I'm also curious as to what you have contributed to the mini-series? No need to be too specific if you don't want to.

BTW – definitely check out the literature forum. There are often stabs at Goodkind, even out of the Goodkind topic, but if you can ignore them, you can find out about some great books worthy of your attention.

[drawkcabi]

[quote name='Het Vreemdeling' post='1400222' date='Jun 16 2008, 07.54']because the Ring was a well-crafted centerpiece for a mythologically flawless work that has spawned an entire multibillion dollar trans-medium genre wholecloth. The chicken was a rejected idea from Muppets Tonight. next ridiculous question?[/quote]

Try not confusing the idea with the author. Assume a better author or one more accustomed to making ordinary or even silly things scary, like Stephen King, could he have made a story about an evil chicken that wouldn't have been as ridiculed as Goodkind's?

That's all I was trying to say. If you are all ready invested in the author and series to get to book 5 (where the chicken makes its infamous appearance) and still be enjoying it, some can overlook the chicken, not forget it, but overlook it, some can overlook it but have their enthusiasm for the series be diminished, and for some it will be a deal breaker.

[Paddy]

Also, JRRT never tried to claim the Ring was not a ring.

[drawkcabi]

[quote name='Paddiano Ronaldo' post='1400294' date='Jun 16 2008, 08.43']Also, JRRT never tried to claim the Ring was not a ring.[/quote]

Then take an example from an other fantasy/horror story, or greek myth, or the bible. There are dozens of stories that have demons or evil spirits taking the guise of animals. Cats, dogs, snakes, what have you. TG made a bad choice in choosing a chicken, not because one can't make a chicken evil, but because [i]he[/i] couldn't make a chicken evil. From what I understand many were all ready turned off by his work before book 5, the chicken that was not a chicken just put him over the top.

I still say a better author could have made it work.

[Muttering Bill]

[quote name='Drawkcabi' post='1400311' date='Jun 16 2008, 08.53']I still say a better author could have made it work.[/quote]
I don't know. Chickens are a pretty silly animal all around. They're not viscious enough to be cool as a demon, and they're not passive enough to be suprising. If the books were meant to be comedy, a chicken would have worked fine - but I think that any "serious" author who writes in a "chicken that is not a chicken" is going to find himself ridiculed.

[drawkcabi]

[quote name='Muttering Bill' post='1400330' date='Jun 16 2008, 09.08']I don't know. Chickens are a pretty silly animal all around. They're not viscious enough to be cool as a demon, and they're not passive enough to be suprising. If the books were meant to be comedy, a chicken would have worked fine - but I think that any "serious" author who writes in a "chicken that is not a chicken" is going to find himself ridiculed.[/quote]

But those are TG's words. A different author probably wouldn't write "a chicken that is not a chicken" but would have implied it was a demon in the guise of a chicken.

King could have done it.