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

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='Drawkcabi' post='1400311' date='Jun 16 2008, 08.53']I still say a better author could have made it work.[/quote]

A couple of the parodies tackled this exact idea, didn't they...? Can't remember.

Props to addicted for shuffling over. I'll be interested to see how she responds to some of the above commentary, especially since some of it is coming from folks who are not traditionally considered lemmings.

As to meeting and getting to knowing Mr. Goodkind. I can respect that, and I'd like to know what he could say or do that would give one an impression that he is, deep down, anything other than smug or arrogant as he appears in interviews. Interviews that are, I point out, generally skewed to be putting the man in a postive light, as they're for him, about him and not impartial scenarios. The closest thing I can relate it to is some of the famous folks I've met tangentially through work over the years, where I wasn't invited to sit and dine with them, but could still get a chance to talk to them for a bit when they were at the bar and in pretty much every case, the personality I'd seen on television or in print was what I saw in person, be it smug, arrogant, gracious or venal.

[addicted]

OK I will do my best to answer/respond to all- but if I miss any (like I see I did earlier) then please let me know- I am not trying to avoid anything, but I am having a hard time keeping up :P

[quote]My question (as someone sympathetic to Objectivist philosophy) would be, what aspects of SoT reflect that philosophy in any meaningful way?[/quote]

Sorry, I missed this the first time. Like I stated previously I am interested in O'ism but do not claim to be one- With that said, I will respond w/ my opinions/experience.

Background: For me, Goodkind intrigued me- I didn't know of O'ism, never had heard of it prior to visiting the boards. At the time, it was only the second board I had ever visited (was a late bloomer :P ) I don't know if I can pinpoint anything specific, but my curiosity was peaked and I figured I would learn more through a community that discussed his works. It was PI first then .Net, but that is where I learned of O'ism which eventually lead me to Rand's work.

WFR="People are stupid...they will believe any lie out of fear or desire" (paraphrased) Ironically I was having issues with the Catholic Church and the baptism of my first child at the time. Long story short: the Godparents I had picked were not approved by the church- I appealed it up to the Bishop and Diocese of the area. I was basically told I could lie on their terms, but they would not bend the rules for me. Needless to say, my faith was certainly questioned....as was everything I had come to [i]believe[/i] was the 'gospel' truth. My "quest" started then and I have been examining and re-examining everything since then. Reinforcement that I had been a proverbial fool...lol...came from the texts of Ayn Rand in [u]Atlas Shrugged.[/u] My quest is not over...I comment frequently how opinions and perspectives are fluid...and this is "my thinking" currently.

I don't know if you have read AS, but if you have, the character of Hank Reardon seriously reinforced a TG quote that sums up quite a bit: "Your life is yours alone, Rise up and live it"- I saw in Hank what had been nagging me for years. I was living for my family not me. Don't get me wrong here please- I love my family, and I cherish their opinions. I respect them and like the people that they are. However their opinions should not have power to trump my own. There is another quote that states (paraphrased) That a child can never really be the sum of who they are/will be until the passing of their parents. I call it "Internal inhibitions" whether we are still seeking their approval or fearing the guilt and disappointment, there is something that holds us back from being completely individual. ....does that make sense?

"Passion rules reason" was the another thing that really smacked me in the head. I was an individual that trudged through life "going on gut instinct" For what it is worth...lol...I am a Pisces and we live by emotions (or so I have been told :P) In my eternal endeavor to give folks the benefit of the doubt and trust everything and everyone at least initially, you can imagine I have been burned on more than one occasion.

The biggest thing I attribute to TG is that he reminded me how much I love to learn and helped me take the blinders off, I stepped out of my box as it were. I also realized bitching wasn't going to change anything but action would. Not bad qualities in an author, no?

Sidenote: My nick-name is for an addiction to [i]learning[/i] not TG :P

Now on to some others:

[quote]A devil figure and a creator figure exist. That actually plays a big part in driving the narrative, especially since anything to do with magic comes from one or the other (more or less - Subtractive magic comes from the Underworld, but isn't necessarily the Keeper/devil's despite generally being portrayed that way until Richard gains the ability to use it, while magic is the Creator's Gift). So religious truth is one point Objectivism would deny but the Sword of Truth does not. It's been awhile since I've read the books, but since Goodkind addresses a lot of modern issues, I'm sure it's not a 1:1 thing.

I read the books back in the day. After Naked Empire came out, I quit. I'd originally intended to go on, but between Pillars and Empire, I just lost interest. Presently, I disagree with several points of Objectivism and, looking back at the books, don't enjoy the writing the way I used to, but I really don't care if other people enjoy them. Goodkind has managed to make some offputting comments in regards to the fantasy genre, but when you remember he hasn't read much fantasy, it's not so bad.[/quote]

Clarification: The Keeper ( assuming devil) and the Creator (assuming God) exist solely to balance each other. The personification of good vs. evil is through man. The same with magic. It is not good magic vs. bad magic but the wielder's intentions of said magic that quantifies it. The "gifted" in earlier times had been born w/ both sides of the gift. It wasn't until man's corruption of it and subsequently the reaction to that corruption that gave "subtractive magic" a bad connotation. Our own history shows a perfect example of this within the demonization of the pentacle.

Pillars was not one of my favs at first read, but there was something that nagged me about it. A friend pinpointed this (for me...again fluid perspectives ;) ) that it is a great example of prejudices. The prejudice is exemplified within the character of Jennsen towards "Master Rahl", and I was prejudice as the reader...I [i]expected[/i] the same thing. I was put off by the main characters not appearing until the end. A re-read with that in mind completely changed my opinion. Naked Empire, again not one of my favs, but it is important to the overall story line.
For me it highlighted that people need to make an individual choice.

To be continued...I am long winded by nature and am worried of space amount :P

[Angalin]

[quote name='Het Vreemdeling' post='1400222' date='Jun 16 2008, 06.54']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.[/quote]
Well, yeah.

[quote name='Muttering Bill' post='1400330' date='Jun 16 2008, 08.08']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]
Pratchett could carry off a scary-funny chicken. King could carry off a scary-scary chicken. But basically I look at a chicken and, like Wile E. Coyote, I see dinner. Any author would had hard work to make me think otherwise.

Mythologically speaking, it's hard for me to believe that Goodkind has created a new mythology for the ages when he hasn't transcended the fantasy niche. Mythology, IMO, is a story we tell ourselves to help explain the world we live in and give it a new depth of meaning. But I can't think of any credible mythologies - short of Tolkien's, which overshadows popular culture like a colossus - created in the last century; not Rowling with her extraordinary success, not Lewis, not Rand. Dylanfanatic, Wert, Pat or Stego might have some examples, but not many.

[Kheldar]

I don't want to disrupt addicted's thread, but I'm willing to participate in this discussion as well.

[CelticBrennus]

[quote]But I can't think of any credible mythologies - short of Tolkien's, which overshadows popular culture like a colossus[/quote]

If you find them today, you find them in film - Star Wars for instance

[quote]WFR="People are stupid...they will believe any lie out of fear or desire" (paraphrased)[/quote]

and

[quote]"Passion rules reason"[/quote]

To be totally honest, none of the rules that TG came up with are particuarly original. You can find commentary on those sorts of themes across Western political theory and discussion.

[Angalin]

[quote name='CelticBrennus' post='1400600' date='Jun 16 2008, 11.03']If you find them today, you find them in film - Star Wars for instance[/quote]
True! Just think of all those people putting 'Jedi' down as their religion on a census form.

Star Trek too, for television/film. And Westerns.

[Kheldar]

[quote name='CelticBrennus' post='1400600' date='Jun 16 2008, 13.03']To be totally honest, none of the rules that TG came up with are particuarly original. You can find commentary on those sorts of themes across Western political theory and discussion.[/quote]
True. However, that may not be (and apparently is not) the case in the world TG created...thus their importance in the story is not invalidated...merely the reaction of people who think these ideas are revolutionary and wrongly attribute them to Terry as original. For them, Terry is important because he introduced them to the concepts, regardless of the origin or originality of the concepts.

As another example, the concept of "personal responsibility" is hardly new, but hammered home by Goodkind (perhaps too much, for some tastes). For someone who has only heard of relativism and has learned only to blame someone else for their failings, it can be a rude awakening. Again...not new, but new to some readers, and introduced to them by Goodkind.

[Blaine]

Hi Addicted, I admire your pluck in coming here.

I read Wizard's First Rule before I ever read GRRM and I wasn't a fan. Aside from Goodkind's prose, which bugged me for having really stilited unnatural dialog and obvious plots... the one big thing that I didn't get was...


What's up with all of the S&M sex stuff?

It really felt unnecessary and like some sort of kink the author had - never met the guy, just assumed he shoehorned it in because he digs it.

I guess, as a TG fan, why do you think he dwells on it so frequently? Is the average TG fan also into S&M or do they just like reading about it?

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1400628' date='Jun 16 2008, 12.28']True. However, that may not be (and apparently is not) the case in the world TG created...thus their importance in the story is not invalidated...merely the reaction of people who think these ideas are revolutionary and wrongly attribute them to Terry as original. For them, Terry is important because he introduced them to the concepts, regardless of the origin or originality of the concepts.

As another example, the concept of "personal responsibility" is hardly new, but hammered home by Goodkind (perhaps too much, for some tastes). For someone who has only heard of relativism and has learned only to blame someone else for their failings, it can be a rude awakening. Again...not new, but new to some readers, and introduced to them by Goodkind.[/quote]

Seems to be a fair statement. However, one would think that the logical follow through on discovering something new and revolutionary, such as these concepts, further investigation would warrant. Actually looking about and seeing what else there is about it and whether it's something that truly resonates or f it's simply a surface reaction. That does not seem to be the case in many respects.

[CelticBrennus]

MY point was more that for whatever pretensions of philosophy that these rules have, they are just....lame...

They are presented in a highly simplistic manner, and not given any actual intellectual or philosphic treatment.

[Serious Callers Only]

[quote name='Paddiano Ronaldo' post='1400642' date='Jun 16 2008, 18.35']wtf? who is this directed at?
this has been a good-natured thread up till now. Why are you being a dick?[/quote]

It just is my opinion.
Someone who enjoys these books either didn't actually *read* them, has a phenomenally low reading comprehension, or is just plain disturbed.
What is it going to be?

[Kheldar]

[quote name='Blaine23' post='1400629' date='Jun 16 2008, 13.28']Hi Addicted, I admire your pluck in coming here.

I read Wizard's First Rule before I ever read GRRM and I wasn't a fan. Aside from Goodkind's prose, which bugged me for having really stilited unnatural dialog and obvious plots...[/quote]
Disliking the dialog is a perfectly valid reason to not like a book.

[quote name='Blaine23' post='1400629' date='Jun 16 2008, 13.28']What's up with all of the S&M sex stuff?[/quote]
How much was there?

[quote name='Blaine23' post='1400629' date='Jun 16 2008, 13.28']It really felt unnecessary and like some sort of kink the author had - never met the guy, just assumed he shoehorned it in because he digs it.[/quote]
I really don't know, and won't presume to answer this. It's possible the he likes S&M, or perhaps he detests it. Finding it unnecessary to the story is up to the individual. Could it have been done differently? Of course. On the other hand, it's obviously memorable...

[quote name='Blaine23' post='1400629' date='Jun 16 2008, 13.28']I guess, as a TG fan, why do you think he dwells on it so frequently?[/quote]
A reflection of reality, perhaps. Forced sex is used as a way to control people, or abuse them...to show power over another. It's been used in times of war as a reward for troops (rape the women of the vanquished), and as a way to terrorize the opposition. It's used by abusive husbands/boyfriends, rapists of all stripes, etc.

Forced sex shows up in various books (in other words, it's hardly an original idea), and is generally used to show the immorality of those performing such acts.

The submission involved in WFR was more than just about sex, though...it was an absolute submission of will to the Mistress, for whom the dominated person would do anything. The detail (which some might argue was excessive) shows how completely Richard was dominated...how shattered he was, how much his own will was destroyed.

A question for you on this...how frequently does TG dwell on this topic? There's the fairly long scene in WFR...after that, I wouldn't really say he ever dwells on it, other than discussing some of the mental anguish Richard experiences as a result. Is it really frequent, or does the presence of Mord Sith in later books (if you've read later books) merely bring to mind the original "meeting" of them in the first book?

[quote name='Blaine23' post='1400629' date='Jun 16 2008, 13.28']Is the average TG fan also into S&M or do they just like reading about it?[/quote]
I can't answer for the "average TG fan", only myself. I don't like S&M. I don't look for it in my books. However, I'm not overly distressed when such actions are in a book...in other words, it doesn't bother me that TG used S&M-style abuse and domination (but real instead of simulated) as a plot device.

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1400684' date='Jun 16 2008, 12.56']Forced sex shows up in various books (in other words, it's hardly an original idea), and is generally used to show the immorality of those performing such acts.[/quote]

Used once, it's an example.

Used twice, it's a device.

Used in every single book it is a crutch, it's repetive and possibly a fetish of the author.

[Kheldar]

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1400649' date='Jun 16 2008, 13.40']Seems to be a fair statement. However, one would think that the logical follow through on discovering something new and revolutionary, such as these concepts, further investigation would warrant. Actually looking about and seeing what else there is about it and whether it's something that truly resonates or f it's simply a surface reaction. That does not seem to be the case in many respects.[/quote]
There's a reason my signature at TG.net is "There is no John Galt. ;) I've certainly not been shy about my disagreements with Objectivism.

Yes, some people get excited by an idea and then never research it further. They can come across as rabid fans that seem to warrant mockery.

But I have to ask...how much have you studied the subject in order to determine that it doesn't seem to be the case in many respects?

[quote name='CelticBrennus' post='1400664' date='Jun 16 2008, 13.48']MY point was more that for whatever pretensions of philosophy that these rules have, they are just....lame...

They are presented in a highly simplistic manner, and not given any actual intellectual or philosphic treatment.[/quote]
Have you actually read the books? The presentation may be simple within the story, but each book goes on to reinforce the new "rule" in some way.

[quote name='Serious Callers Only' post='1400675' date='Jun 16 2008, 13.52']It just is my opinion.
Someone who enjoys these books either didn't actually *read* them, has a phenomenally low reading comprehension, or is just plain disturbed.
What is it going to be?[/quote]
Perhaps it's a fourth option, which your intellectually inferior mind is apparently unable to comprehend: we just have different tastes in books than you. God forbid someone should like a book that you don't. Curse them for a thousand generations, those misbegotten sons of mongrel dogs and rabid cats!

[Serious Callers Only]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1400700' date='Jun 16 2008, 19.04']Perhaps it's a fourth option, which your intellectually inferior mind is apparently unable to comprehend: we just have different tastes in books than you. God forbid someone should like a book that you don't. Curse them for a thousand generations, those misbegotten sons of mongrel dogs and rabid cats![/quote]

Indeed. (But I like cats).

[Kheldar]

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1400698' date='Jun 16 2008, 14.03']Used once, it's an example.

Used twice, it's a device.

Used in every single book it is a crutch, it's repetive and possibly a fetish of the author.[/quote]
And how many times is S&M-style domination used in the books? Is it actually there, or are you merely seeing violence done by a Mord Sith and automatically connecting it with S&M, due to the impression made by the extensive scene in the first book?

[Kheldar]

[quote name='Serious Callers Only' post='1400701' date='Jun 16 2008, 14.06']Indeed. ([b]But I like cats[/b]).[/quote]
That explains much. I won't hold it against you. :D

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1400706' date='Jun 16 2008, 13.07']And how many times is S&M-style domination used in the books? Is it actually there, or are you merely seeing violence done by a Mord Sith and automatically connecting it with S&M, due to the impression made by the extensive scene in the first book?[/quote]

You refered to "forced sex". Rape, almost rape, seems to be prevelant in throughout the Sword of Truth series. Kahlan is nearly raped a number of time, as are other female characters. This is what I refer to in my respose from above. It's repetitive and loses any impact as the series progresses and it occurs in every book at least once.

[CelticBrennus]

[quote]Have you actually read the books? The presentation may be simple within the story, but each book goes on to reinforce the new "rule" in some way.[/quote]

Yes, I have read them and literally threw the last one (where he carves that thing that makes everyone love him or whatever) across the room.

I have also read a lot of history and political theory and diplomatic history, and if you actually want to have some sort of discussion of these sort of themes, you have to create a realistic world where people act in a realisitic manner for any examination to work. Goodkind however says "people are stupid" and then creates a society of idiots who disagree with his hero to prove his point. ITs just that his examination of these rules or themes has no value at any philosophic or theoretical value

[Angalin]

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1400698' date='Jun 16 2008, 13.03']Used once, it's an example.

Used twice, it's a device.

Used in every single book it is a crutch, it's repetive and possibly a fetish of the author.[/quote]
Sauce for goose, gander, etc: Laurell K. Hamilton is pilloried in many places for her bizarro sex scenes.