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

[addicted]

[quote name='CelticBrennus' post='1403979' date='Jun 18 2008, 10.14']Huh, it seemed to me that this was actually relatively civil compared to a lot of threads that have come and gone.

You want nasty, man, check out of the old threads in the book forums, those used to get really hostile.[/quote]


No, I *did not * want nasty...if I had sought that then, yes I would have participated in "those" threads.

And yes, it has remained (mostly) civil. I was pleased with the direction things were heading.

My problem is that some can't put away the rhetoric long enough to discuss things without the sarcasm and belittling. We (@.Net) have been repeatedly been asked for such type of discussion and yet it always seems to return to the ....well...crap .....for lack of a better term. I initiated this to resolve that and the general stereotyping that accompanied TG fans. I also wanted to see for myself if my own developing prejudices were warranted. While I may have succeeded in part, I find the direction of this thread degenerating. To alleviate that for both parties (it seems moot to continue to rehash the same shit) then I will bow out if necessary. You all don't need "crap" on your board, just like we don't want it on ours.

For those that say "if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen" or "grow some skin...its the internet" ...I [i]can[/i] handle it...and I have "thick skin" it just is no longer worthy of my time if it is just going to be an avenue of hate, disdain, and sarcasm. That was *not* my purpose in coming here.

Exchanging ideas, perspectives and learning were my goals. I can search old threads to find the sarcasm, mockery, and nasty. I wanted to try something [i]new[/i].

~A

So like I said, I will stick around and see-

[Jaxom 1974]

@ addicted:

Don't know what to say. I rather thought the conversation was a good one. Stalemate to be sure, as you say, simply because no one really wants to have thier minds changed it seems.

Khel certainly seems to argue prettily, but he's arguing for a tie, not a win and that can be frustrating to some. Not a jab there.

Semantics obviously plays a role in why things don't seem able to change.

Sorry you feel things have gone sour.

[addicted]

Not sour per se, but I can visualize the direction it may head from what I have seen in some of the previous posts. I wanted to restate [i]my[/i] purposes for initiating the thread.

[Kheldar]

[quote name='Exa Inova' post='1403681' date='Jun 18 2008, 04.22']@ Het Vreemdeling: I think Kheldar called your referring Goodkind as 'Tairy' infantile.[/quote]
Yes, hence the bolding of the typeface in the quote.

[quote name='Eloisa' post='1403710' date='Jun 18 2008, 05.28']Kheldar - thank you for the good wishes, and the plural of "series" is "series". :)[/quote]
I figured it was, but it's one of those annoying words that doesn't look right when used as a plural...I mean, it's already implicitly plural since it's referencing multiple objects (series of books, series of numbers, etc.). I also want to use: fishes, sheeps, meese, cactuses, and other incorrect plurals. :D

[quote name='Eloisa' post='1403710' date='Jun 18 2008, 05.28']The problem with this in relation to SoT is that TG does say (at length. :P) that he is actively trying to write about a life-affirming philosophy in the context of a series of novels, and that a number of readers - including the Lemmings of Discord - reject the philosophy, not the author.[/quote]
I can understand why people who reject the philosophy would reject the author. TG is extremely outspoken, and speaks with an air of arrogance that comes from certainty. I probably have a similar sound when talking about issues that involve my faith (Catholicism, as I mentioned upthread a bit). Anyway, perceived arrogance and absolutes declared under the certainty of faith are anathema to many, and can evoke a visceral reaction.

Things weren't helped when TG referred to those who reject the philosophy as "haters of life". It would have had a cementing effect on many, I'm sure. I wonder what opinions of the books would be if someone just read the books and didn't read TG's statements outside the books. Some people I know who liked the first few books lost interest when the characters (particularly Richard, but others to a lesser extent) "got preachy".

There are two different primary reasons I've seen for disliking the SoT series, and a person can have both reasons.
1: The writing itself. This includes things like realism, dialog, use of cliches, descriptiveness, character development, back story, etc. This is stuff internal to the books. I would suggest that this also includes something like the earlier discussion about a caricature of a real world philosophy for use as a foil (or even if it's meant to be a foil).
2: The philosophy. This includes TG's comments outside the books. I accept that people reject TG's philosophy. I accept that people reject TG himself. That's perfectly reasonable behavior, when one disagrees in the extreme with a philosophy.

None of that causes a real problem for me. I [b]do[/b] have a problem when somebody uses differences of opinion in a matter like the above to justify negative stereotypes of those with opposing viewpoints (that applies to fans who denigrate non-fans as well). Hmm....actually, that's not quite true. The full problem is when those negative stereotypes are acted on in some manner.

[quote name='CelticBrennus' post='1403979' date='Jun 18 2008, 10.14']Huh, it seemed to me that this was actually relatively civil compared to a lot of threads that have come and gone.[/quote]
Yes, it has been very civil, really. I've been in some very biting debates, where civility goes right out the window. It was regular fare at one board I used to post at (it's no longer around, sadly). That experience probably toughened my internet skin more than any other.

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1404098' date='Jun 18 2008, 10.16']Yes, it has been very civil, really. I've been in some very biting debates, where civility goes right out the window. It was regular fare at one board I used to post at (it's no longer around, sadly). That experience probably toughened my internet skin more than any other.[/quote]

And props to you both for making it over here. Props to our Westeros Mods for keeping a proper eye on things and allowing this to flow. To be frank, despite a couple of jabs and potentially bad seeds in the thread (which I think we all mostly ignored), this really was the forum for this forum. In honesty, I don't know that this discourse could happen/go on anywhere else. But that's my opinion and subject for entirley other kind of debate. :P

[Kheldar]

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1404075' date='Jun 18 2008, 11.04']Khel certainly seems to argue prettily, but he's arguing for a tie, not a win and that can be frustrating to some. Not a jab there.[/quote]
No jab felt. As you said, nobody seems to want to change their minds (well, you said "have their minds changed"). I know there are people who are adamantly opposed to TG, his books and his philosophy. There's no point in debating with them.

The potential "win", such as it is, would be one I would never see. It would be a case where somebody sees the discussion and is intrigued enough to at least read the first book (perhaps even with an open mind), instead of choosing to not read it because of only seeing negative reviews. They may like it, they may not, but they'll never know if they don't read it.

Another potential "win" for me comes from the exposure to differing opinions. It causes me to look at things from a different perspective, to evaluate my position and understand of things. Echo chambers can be comfortable, but are hardly conducive to personal growth.

[Kheldar]

[quote name='Erik of Hazelfield' post='1404059' date='Jun 18 2008, 10.54']Actually, I did have one such topic of interest. It got kind of lost during the flamewar on page 7: [url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=29003&view=findpost&p=1401160"]http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1401160[/url]

It's about the chapter when Harold comes to Kahlan to explain why Galea wishes to remain neutral in the war. I would be very interested in a comment on that one.[/quote]
I promise I'll get to this. I was about to start, but realized I have to be about 50 miles from where I am in about an hour, so it's time for me to go.

As a quickie response (and you can request more detail if you'd like), I'll say the following:
1. Kahlan's threat of imprisoning her half-sister with brutes who would rape her was deplorable.
2. Kahlan's declaration of war against a country that wanted to remain neutral is not without reason...it was a tactical military decision. Galea, if overrun by the Imperial Order, would split the remaining countries inside the D'Haran Empire in half.
3. Harold's killing was wrong, only in that it was an informal trial. If accused of being a traitor, he should have been arrested and tried before being convicted and executed. I agree with the reasoning for declaring him a traitor. I also point out (not to excuse, but for thought) that in battlefield situations, sometimes harsh decisions need to be made quickly.

[addicted]

[quote name='Erik of Hazelfield' post='1404059' date='Jun 18 2008, 10.54']Actually, I did have one such topic of interest. It got kind of lost during the flamewar on page 7: [url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=29003&view=findpost&p=1401160"]http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1401160[/url]

It's about the chapter when Harold comes to Kahlan to explain why Galea wishes to remain neutral in the war. I would be very interested in a comment on that one.[/quote]

I have read it for a refresher; again...offering my opinion, not TG's.

I have commented previously that I questioned this very passage/POV.

1st- Zedd declared the traitor/death sentence not Kahlan. We don't know who actually was the executioner. ( I think it was Zedd /shrugs)

2nd- I think Kahlan was using a threat (Cyrilla thrown back in the pit) to shake her back to reality. (if she did indeed was back to a realistic state of mind) I honestly don't believe she would have done it. Maybe incarceration, but not that pit. She was trying to influence them both w/ a threat...a threat on her part but not on the side of the IO)

3rd- This was during an incursion of the IO, Kahlan knew their fate even if they were not willing to admit it to themselves. She had witnessed it...and if you had continued further w/ the novels (after Kahlan left them to their own fate) it was what she described and more.

4th- As the Mother Confessor she had the final say. As the queen of Galea, she had the final say. For Cyrilla to completely come back to having her faculties was wishful thinking, and harold almost admitted as much. He knew strategically it was the wrong approach and argued w/ his sister vehemently about it. He was bound by loyalty and love, not survival at that point. Kahlan held the polar opposite and was bound only by survival. She also knew that Cyrilla was never a queen during wartime and did not have the experience to truly understand her/Galea's fate.

5th- It was an example that even the heroes, can have their reasoning clouded by passion...on both sides of the spectrum. (The passion/empathy she had for Harold) and...it clearly signifies her passions to end the war superseded her reasoning.

6th- LOL...I don't claim to have knowledge of wartime strategies or decisions. I have tried to put myself in her position and honestly (considering the previous declaration of "with us or against us") I don't know what she could have done differently.

(let's play what if)

If she had released Harold and let Galea remain "neutral" They would have been raped, pillaged, and conquered (among other things), then Kahlan not only has to fight the additional soldiers but is positioned against her family...same result

If she had captured Harold (and not executed) then what? Cyrilla would assume the best or worst and done what? Sent more soldiers to look/retrieve Harold and weakened her lands that much more. Sat back negotiating with the IO to eventually lead her land to destruction via rape, pillaging, death, and slavery.

The only time the IO has played nice nice is in the beginning of negotiations (lol) when they think they can conquer w/out fighting. Just long enough to fool the monarch(or whatever leader) to open the gates..so to speak...and allow the soldiers access. The Order is quite literally out of control. They (soldiers) have their own agenda and it is constantly reinforced positively. Raping and pillaging is a reward, a boon for their efforts. It is one of the main recruiting tactics. How do you fight w/ honor when none is reciprocated?

I know I may be opening the proverbial can of worms...and may be I should read more of the link you offered to prepare myself, but let me ask you this...."What am I missing here?" No I don't condone it per se, but what is the alternative? All of [i]my[/i] scenarios I have run through result the same. To join with them...is really their only chance. I know the IO is very black and white...and that is an issue discussed elsewhere but given the circumstances in this world...with this foe...what could be done to change the outcome?

[The Pita]

First of all, addicted, I would like to say hello. I only noticed this thread today, and between Fevre Dream, studying for math, and reading this thread, it's only now that I can respond.
But as something to begin my post with:
I loved TG for a long time, and thought he was a great author. When I finally read an interview of his on his website, I got to the conclusion "Oh well, he's arrogant, but he deserves the opportunity to be so". I thought that Soul of the Fire was the greatest book there was. It is probably the only book I ever cried about. I've gotten emotional about Hobb's excellent Liveship trilogy, but when I was 13, Soul of the Fire was a masterpiece.
A few years after that I bought a copy of A Game of Thrones.
Just as Sword of Truth had replaced Redwall as my favorite series, A Song of Ice and Fire replaced Sword of Truth.
I make fun of Terry because it's funny. Not out of any other reason. There have been times when I was sick and not thinking clearly in which I posted out of rage, because Terry has a knack to say antagonistic things.
I am glad to see a member of .net who is kindly disposed, at least to Myshkin et al. My previous experiences with .net have been disastrous, to say the least, as well as rule-breaking in both this board and .net.
Now, for your post, and my response.
[quote]1st- Zedd declared the traitor/death sentence not Kahlan. We don't know who actually was the executioner. ( I think it was Zedd /shrugs)[/quote]
It's odd that this happens after I give away my TG books, but I can't remember that even though I have re-read this very scene. (I don't think it matters much)
[quote]2nd- I think Kahlan was using a threat (Cyrilla thrown back in the pit) to shake her back to reality. (if she did indeed was back to a realistic state of mind) I honestly don't believe she would have done it. Maybe incarceration, but not that pit. She was trying to influence them both w/ a threat...a threat on her part but not on the side of the IO)[/quote]
Even so, there must be some tact in the threat. Her threat could just make Cyrilla even more antagonistic than she was (It seems to be my favorite word in this post. It involves both ants and sticks). I know that my response to "You know that trauma that shattered your mind? If you don't surrender I'll do it again" would be marshalling up an army agains the cruel dictator. Even worse, I would probably ally with the dictator's enemies. At least they won't try to traumatize me once I'm on their side.
[quote]3rd- This was during an incursion of the IO, Kahlan knew their fate even if they were not willing to admit it to themselves. She had witnessed it...and if you had continued further w/ the novels (after Kahlan left them to their own fate) it was what she described and more.[/quote]
This is just an irritation of mine, where poetic justice happens even when Richard forgives someone, or circumstances will conspire to make an unreasonable point seem reasonable. For example, in book 2 , soldiers decide they don't want to fight, so Kahlan has them killed because they are probably spies for the enemy. This, normally, would be ridiculous, yet it turns out to be true.
[quote]4th- As the Mother Confessor she had the final say. As the queen of Galea, she had the final say. For Cyrilla to completely come back to having her faculties was wishful thinking, and harold almost admitted as much. He knew strategically it was the wrong approach and argued w/ his sister vehemently about it. He was bound by loyalty and love, not survival at that point. Kahlan held the polar opposite and was bound only by survival. She also knew that Cyrilla was never a queen during wartime and did not have the experience to truly understand her/Galea's fate.[/quote]
No argument here, though it seems to revive my above point that the circumstances seem to have conspired to prove Kahlan right.
[quote]5th- It was an example that even the heroes, can have their reasoning clouded by passion...on both sides of the spectrum. (The passion/empathy she had for Harold) and...it clearly signifies her passions to end the war superseded her reasoning.[/quote]
As other people have said, the problem is that she shows no remorse. After you do something fueled by rage, you feel remorse afterwards. Normal human behavior.
[quote]6th- LOL...I don't claim to have knowledge of wartime strategies or decisions. I have tried to put myself in her position and honestly (considering the previous declaration of "with us or against us") I don't know what she could have done differently.[/quote]
You have a point there. I will concede this argument to you today, but tomorrow, I will rule the world! muahahahah.
[quote]The only time the IO has played nice nice is in the beginning of negotiations (lol) when they think they can conquer w/out fighting. Just long enough to fool the monarch(or whatever leader) to open the gates..so to speak...and allow the soldiers access. The Order is quite literally out of control. They (soldiers) have their own agenda and it is constantly reinforced positively. Raping and pillaging is a reward, a boon for their efforts. It is one of the main recruiting tactics. How do you fight w/ honor when none is reciprocated?[/quote]
You don't. Quite simple. Or, another example is in A Clash of Kings and A Storm of Swords, by George R. R. Martin. Despite what you may believe about me and everyone on this board (I'm in a seperate category), he is quite the author. Note that the example in A Clash of Kings and A Storm of Swords is a bad one, but shameless plugging must be done, and with much plugging!

[VigoTheCarpathian]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1404098' date='Jun 18 2008, 08.16']<snip>

There are two different primary reasons I've seen for disliking the SoT series, and a person can have both reasons.
1: The writing itself. This includes things like realism, dialog, use of cliches, descriptiveness, character development, back story, etc. This is stuff internal to the books. I would suggest that this also includes something like the earlier discussion about a caricature of a real world philosophy for use as a foil (or even if it's meant to be a foil).
2: The philosophy. This includes TG's comments outside the books. I accept that people reject TG's philosophy. I accept that people reject TG himself. That's perfectly reasonable behavior, when one disagrees in the extreme with a philosophy.
<snip>[/quote]

I don't know if this is implicit in your writing category, but I've tried to bring up the sheer fact of entertainment. I've been trying to address it in terms of "Hey, I was entertained by the first few books, but now, not so much", which I don't know is internal to the series itself. Things like The DaVinci Code, and summer action flicks can be forgiven a lot of the things you mention in 1), if they are entertaining. Especially when it comes to fiction, "being entertained" (via characters, plot, thought) is the primary hook, and all other things by necessity follow.

Again, I thought the first few books, up through FotF were entertaining, even if I chose to disregard the increasingly heavy-handed subtext. But the increased frequency of pushing aside the entertainment in favor of expounding on the philosophy (instead of integrating it as part of the story, for the reader to figure out) led me to stop enjoying the series. If he managed to keep the books entertaining and kept the philosophy as part of a subtext or a premise (instead of expounding for pages at length in speeches), I would still have been entertained, and continued enjoying it, possibly thinking more about the philosophy instead of mentally shutting down after being beaten over the head with "life" and flipping ahead to look for where the quotes end.

I think it's fine if people continued on, and enjoyed the philosophy: that's their personal preference. When I went back and re-read WFR, the "fire speech" stood out to me as something that didn't hook me immediately on first read as a philosophical diversion, but I caught after knowing what to look for. So I know that TG is capable of at least some measure of subtley while still being able to get his message across whilst entertaining. It's just that instead of "getting better" of integrating it as part of an overall story, his books seemed to regress over time, in that it told the story in a less entertaining manner, with more explicit philosophy.

Now that's fine if philosophy becomes part of the entertainment for a person, I could see them enjoying that progression. But as far as I can tell, the writing remained similar/same across all the books, the philosophy became paramount to the story-telling, and the entertainment value overall went below a threshold in my head to where I would continue buying the books.

Any way someone would address this?

[Moosicus]

[quote name='addicted' post='1399388' date='Jun 15 2008, 16.21']Wert, Moose and Myshkin all have read my posts and I am sure could vouch/banish me as they see fit.[/quote]
Absolutely (about the vouching, I have no powers of banishment).

Hello addicted :mellow:
[quote name='addicted' post='1399388' date='Jun 15 2008, 16.21']~hears knuckles cracking...Moose scrambling to get a cocktail made....Myshkin grabbing a brew and smoke....all with evil smiles upon their faces and anticipation in their hearts~ :P :P[/quote]
I find it amusing that Myshkin has barely said a word, and I've stayed out of it completely. You always think the worst of me, and it hurts. :cry:

[quote name='Exa Inova' post='1402329' date='Jun 17 2008, 12.41']Great. I dont mind a little rape.[/quote]
This needs to be sigged.


*cracks knuckles and pours a drink* ;)

[Erik of Hazelfield]

This'll be a long one...

[quote name='addicted' post='1404208' date='Jun 18 2008, 18.09']I have read it for a refresher; again...offering my opinion, not TG's.

I have commented previously that I questioned this very passage/POV.[/quote]
OK, I didn't notice that.

[quote name='addicted' post='1404208' date='Jun 18 2008, 18.09']1st- Zedd declared the traitor/death sentence not Kahlan. We don't know who actually was the executioner. ( I think it was Zedd /shrugs)[/quote]
Yep, it was totally Zedd. Can't see how it changes anything though; Zedd should be as righteous as Kahlan.

[quote name='addicted' post='1404208' date='Jun 18 2008, 18.09']2nd- I think Kahlan was using a threat (Cyrilla thrown back in the pit) to shake her back to reality. (if she did indeed was back to a realistic state of mind) I honestly don't believe she would have done it. Maybe incarceration, but not that pit. She was trying to influence them both w/ a threat...a threat on her part but not on the side of the IO)[/quote]
Well, what influence could that threat possibly have? She had already declared war on Galea - if anything, the added threat would only make Cyrilla even more hostile to the D'Haran Empire. If the purpose was to scare her into obedience, it failed miserably (and wasn't exactly helped by the fact that Harold never got the chance to deliver it).

By the way, you should read A Feast for Crows for some excellent ideas about threats.

[quote name='addicted' post='1404208' date='Jun 18 2008, 18.09']3rd- This was during an incursion of the IO, Kahlan knew their fate even if they were not willing to admit it to themselves. She had witnessed it...and if you had continued further w/ the novels (after Kahlan left them to their own fate) it was what she described and more.[/quote]
Too bad for them. Once again it turns out that if you disobey Richard or Kahlan, something bad will happen to you.

Anyway, I'm not saying Kahlan was necessarily wrong in recommending that Galea should join the war against the Order. I'm just saying she made a diplomatic mess out of it.

[quote name='addicted' post='1404208' date='Jun 18 2008, 18.09']4th- As the Mother Confessor she had the final say. As the queen of Galea, she had the final say. For Cyrilla to completely come back to having her faculties was wishful thinking, and harold almost admitted as much. He knew strategically it was the wrong approach and argued w/ his sister vehemently about it. He was bound by loyalty and love, not survival at that point. Kahlan held the polar opposite and was bound only by survival. She also knew that Cyrilla was never a queen during wartime and did not have the experience to truly understand her/Galea's fate.[/quote]
As I said, she may have been right about the Order. On the other hand, I don't agree that she had any right to annex Galea into the D'Haran Empire, no matter how strategically benificial it would have been. If Galea wishes to remain neutral, that's her right. (Unless Mother Confessor means ruler of the world.)

[quote name='addicted' post='1404208' date='Jun 18 2008, 18.09']5th- It was an example that even the heroes, can have their reasoning clouded by passion...on both sides of the spectrum. (The passion/empathy she had for Harold) and...it clearly signifies her passions to end the war superseded her reasoning.[/quote]
She must indeed have a heart of stone if she cares about Harold yet lets him be killed for the sake of reason. Do we ever see any regret on her part about this episode?

[quote name='addicted' post='1404208' date='Jun 18 2008, 18.09']6th- LOL...I don't claim to have knowledge of wartime strategies or decisions. I have tried to put myself in her position and honestly (considering the previous declaration of "with us or against us") I don't know what she could have done differently.[/quote]
Thing is, "with us or against us" is bad diplomacy. Especially if annexation of your kingdom is part of the deal. You risk creating more enemies than friends.

She could have offered Galea to join the war against the order without actually joining the D'Haran Empire. She could have gone there herself to try to convince Cyrilla. She could have let them be neutral in the war, despite knowing what would happen. Or she could have sent soldiers there to help protect Galea against the Order.

I know, none of the options are perfect. However, what irks me is that Kahlans actions (declaring war on Galea for not following her orders) is portrayed as the only moral thing to do.

[quote name='addicted' post='1404208' date='Jun 18 2008, 18.09'](let's play what if)

If she had released Harold and let Galea remain "neutral" They would have been raped, pillaged, and conquered (among other things), then Kahlan not only has to fight the additional soldiers but is positioned against her family...same result

If she had captured Harold (and not executed) then what? Cyrilla would assume the best or worst and done what? Sent more soldiers to look/retrieve Harold and weakened her lands that much more. Sat back negotiating with the IO to eventually lead her land to destruction via rape, pillaging, death, and slavery.[/quote]
Isn't that what happened anyway? (I honestly don't know.) How did it turn out?

Anyway, killing a messenger and diplomat is not comme il faut. You just don't do that. If that diplomat also happens to be your half brother, who you have empathy for and who is really on your side, the decision seems downright evil.

[quote name='addicted' post='1404208' date='Jun 18 2008, 18.09']The only time the IO has played nice nice is in the beginning of negotiations (lol) when they think they can conquer w/out fighting. Just long enough to fool the monarch(or whatever leader) to open the gates..so to speak...and allow the soldiers access. The Order is quite literally out of control. They (soldiers) have their own agenda and it is constantly reinforced positively. Raping and pillaging is a reward, a boon for their efforts. It is one of the main recruiting tactics. How do you fight w/ honor when none is reciprocated?[/quote]
That is an interesting topic. Is anything allowed in a war?

To answer the question, it certainly helps to have an enemy that is so brutal and unforgiving that any fate seems better than being conquered. In Goodkind's world, the answer is a clear yes. In Martin's world, the answer is not so easy to give (and is actually a central theme to the series).

[quote name='addicted' post='1404208' date='Jun 18 2008, 18.09']I know I may be opening the proverbial can of worms...and may be I should read more of the link you offered to prepare myself, but let me ask you this...."What am I missing here?" No I don't condone it per se, but what is the alternative? All of [i]my[/i] scenarios I have run through result the same. To join with them...is really their only chance. I know the IO is very black and white...and that is an issue discussed elsewhere but given the circumstances in this world...with this foe...what could be done to change the outcome?[/quote]
As you said - to join with the D'Haran Empire is their only chance. Wouldn't it then pay off to try to convince them to do this?

I can't help it, I just find the scene sickening. What Kahlan does is wrong on so many levels and that it's treated as the right thing to do is more disturbing than anything else I've ever read.

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Erik of Hazelfield' post='1404886' date='Jun 18 2008, 15.43']I can't help it, I just find the scene sickening. What Kahlan does is wrong on so many levels and that it's treated as the right thing to do is more disturbing than anything else I've ever read.[/quote]
This is really the point I was trying to make in my last post: Its not the actions of the characters that I have a problem with, it's the way those actions are portrayed as good by the author.

I want to talk about something else that bothers me about Terry's work; something that so far hasn't really been broached in this thread: the issue of plagiarism. I'll use the three biggest examples from Terry's work to highlight this topic, those examples being: the Sisters of the Light, the Sisters of the Dark, and the Blood of the Fold. Anybody who's read WoT knows that these three Goodkind "creations" are carbon copies of Jordan's Aes Sedai, Black Ajah, and Children of the Light; not only in and of themselves but also in the way they interact with each other. Kheldar, I saw that you mentioned that you have read Jordan's work, so I ask how you see this issue. Do you see this as plagiarism? If so, how would you justify it? If not, how do you explain the fact that these concepts are carbon copies of those Jordan published just a few years before?

[TerraPrime]

[quote name='VigoTheCarpathian' post='1404773' date='Jun 18 2008, 16.24']So I know that TG is capable of at least some measure of subtley while still being able to get his message across whilst entertaining. It's just that instead of "getting better" of integrating it as part of an overall story, his books seemed to regress over time, in that it told the story in a less entertaining manner, with more explicit philosophy.[/quote]

This presumes that Goodkind wrote the books with the similar intention in mind, namely, to write an entertaining story that he cared about. I submit that the increasing heavy-handedness of his messages as the series progressed, coupled with the insights into his writing process from interviews, suggests that the later books were not written in the same way that the earlier ones were.

Being preached to is not entertaining, to most people, regardless of whether they agree with the message or not. Goodkind's books (especially after the 3rd or 4th one) belong in the pulpits on Sundays, not on the bookshelves for fictions, imo. Then again, considering that Rand's biggest claim to fame were also fictions, it's not entirely surprising that Goodkind would choose this route.

[addicted]

I *will* reply to these posts, probably in the morning...maybe later tonight...depending on how well hubby does at Poker tonight :P

[addicted]

Hey Pita...mind if I just call you Pita? :P I *do* remember you.

[quote]Even so, there must be some tact in the threat. Her threat could just make Cyrilla even more antagonistic than she was (It seems to be my favorite word in this post. It involves both ants and sticks). I know that my response to "You know that trauma that shattered your mind? If you don't surrender I'll do it again" would be marshalling up an army agains the cruel dictator. Even worse, I would probably ally with the dictator's enemies. At least they won't try to traumatize me once I'm on their side.[/quote]

Yes she could have become more antagonistic...but does that change the scenario? Marshalling an army would effectively do the same thing. And the point to my post, was that no matter of the threat from Kahlan...the Order would have tried to traumatize her, then rape her, then etc...etc...etc. The threat was done by Kahlan (I think) in the heat of the moment...she could not believe that Cyrilla and especially Harold would choose to see w/ blinders on after what they themselves had witnessed.

[quote]This is just an irritation of mine, where poetic justice happens even when Richard forgives someone, or circumstances will conspire to make an unreasonable point seem reasonable.[/quote]

I can see where you are coming from,

[quote]For example, in book 2 , soldiers decide they don't want to fight, so Kahlan has them killed because they are probably spies for the enemy. This, normally, would be ridiculous, yet it turns out to be true.[/quote]

re-reading that book now, haven't gotten there yet :P But if I remember correctly: The soldiers were iffy loyalty to begin with. They were of the IO mentality (again if I am remembering correctly) (is this where she lets them go then hunts them down?) I think I need to know the specifics (passage/scene) that you are speaking of ...I'm getting confused :P

[quote]As other people have said, the problem is that she shows no remorse. After you do something fueled by rage, you feel remorse afterwards. Normal human behavior.[/quote]

I will have to relook to get reference info, but I do remember her being remorseful. For Harold and the threat to Cyrilla.... They were her only known family...(paraphrased). I don't recall her having remorse for including galea w/i D'Hara. I will research if it is that important to you.

[quote name='Vigo']Now that's fine if philosophy becomes part of the entertainment for a person, I could see them enjoying that progression. But as far as I can tell, the writing remained similar/same across all the books, the philosophy became paramount to the story-telling, and the entertainment value overall went below a threshold in my head to where I would continue buying the books.

Any way someone would address this?[/quote]

I think you answered your own question. I enjoyed the philosophy, therefore I continued to enjoy the books. I also enjoyed the story. While I don't know but if the philosophy did become paramount to TG, is that not his right as an author? You no longer cared for the books, but others did and do...some strictly for the philosophy, some for the storyline, and some for both. LOL...and some, for neither reason! Is the philosophy paramount to an average fan? I would normally say yes, but I have met/know too many peeps now that it is *not* that important to them. Was he heavy handed with it, especially nearing the end, yes. But some folks are not as quick as others especially when digesting a new idea, let alone a philosophy. Some of us (me) *did* need the sledgehammer at times. :P Feel free to re-address if I didn't follow properly.

[quote name=' Moose']I find it amusing that Myshkin has barely said a word, and I've stayed out of it completely. You always think the worst of me, and it hurts. crying.gif[/quote]

I was playing and trying to set a light tone. :P Yours, Myshkin's, and Wert's absence was noted by me. But...I have yet to figure out if it is a bad thing...or good ;) Please join us!

[quote]*cracks knuckles and pours a drink* wink.gif[/quote]

While you are at the bar....I'll take a Crown and Ginger please :D

Erik...to be continued...my time allotment is up

Until next time all-

Cheers!

~A

[VigoTheCarpathian]

[quote name='addicted' post='1405185' date='Jun 18 2008, 18.57']<snip>
I think you answered your own question. I enjoyed the philosophy, therefore I continued to enjoy the books. I also enjoyed the story. While I don't know but if the philosophy did become paramount to TG, is that not his right as an author? You no longer cared for the books, but others did and do...some strictly for the philosophy, some for the storyline, and some for both. LOL...and some, for neither reason! Is the philosophy paramount to an average fan? I would normally say yes, but I have met/know too many peeps now that it is *not* that important to them. Was he heavy handed with it, especially nearing the end, yes. But some folks are not as quick as others especially when digesting a new idea, let alone a philosophy. Some of us (me) *did* need the sledgehammer at times. :P Feel free to re-address if I didn't follow properly.
<snip>[/quote]

I think you answered well enough: I get that some people might continue down the path of reading it for "philosophy as enjoyment". However, (and I'm trying not to be disingenuous here), but my right as a reader is to put his stuff down after laying out a good amount of cash for previous books, and not buy it any more, and complain relentlessly about it :)

The sledgehammer you mention: that's a different cookie. I appreciate not grasping something right away, I'm slow on the uptake a lot of times myself. But when a creation morphs into something like, say, Naked Empire, it's a basic creation (seriously, a magically locked-away nation of pacifists? No precedent for this has ever been set by something in the realm of reality), and a lot of the "preaching" done at the reader makes an inference that TG thinks his audience is stupid (the preaching factor that TerraPrime mentioned). It just seems patronizing to have to get more aggressive with your philosophy as your work progresses: shouldn't your audience, if they liked what you were doing (presumably following along with what you were saying), be willing to try and figure out what you're trying to say?

I mean, the explanation of the wizards rules serve as a perfect example ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard's_Rule"]link[/url]), they just got more verbose and unnecessary as the series went on, when something as simple as "People are stupid" would have served.

To bring it into what has been mentioned before, it would be like Aesop telling the fable of the tortoise and the hare, and then either:

a.) having the tortoise give a speech to a secondary character (a monkey named Nicci, perhaps), in which he outlines that the hare will lose because he was too sure of himself, didn't respect the tenacity of his opponents, ecetera.

b.) having the hare eat testicles of small boys or rape women in drawn out scenes, and then show a scene of the tortoise torturing the hare's friend, for which the audience is supposed to draw the conclusion that the hare deserved to lose the race, and the tortoise to win it, because he tortured only after some wrong was done to him, so was therefore "good".

ETA: some elaboration

[Kheldar]

[quote name='VigoTheCarpathian' post='1404773' date='Jun 18 2008, 17.24']Now that's fine if philosophy becomes part of the entertainment for a person, I could see them enjoying that progression. But as far as I can tell, the writing remained similar/same across all the books, the philosophy became paramount to the story-telling, and the entertainment value overall went below a threshold in my head to where I would continue buying the books.

Any way someone would address this?[/quote]
What's really to address? You no longer like books, so you don't buy/read them. You've given reasons, and they're completely understandable.

You're certainly under no obligation to enjoy TG's books...nor is he under any obligation to write books that you like.

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1404943' date='Jun 18 2008, 19.06']This is really the point I was trying to make in my last post: Its not the actions of the characters that I have a problem with, it's the way those actions are portrayed as good by the author.[/quote]
That is a problem. But some of the actions aren't portrayed as "good" so much as "necessary".

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1404943' date='Jun 18 2008, 19.06']I want to talk about something else that bothers me about Terry's work; something that so far hasn't really been broached in this thread: the issue of plagiarism. I'll use the three biggest examples from Terry's work to highlight this topic, those examples being: the Sisters of the Light, the Sisters of the Dark, and the Blood of the Fold. Anybody who's read WoT knows that these three Goodkind "creations" are carbon copies of Jordan's Aes Sedai, Black Ajah, and Children of the Light;[/quote]
Aes Sedai = Catholic Nuns, called "Sisters" (Ajah's themselves are akin to the different Orders to which a nun may belong...something TG didn't "copy")
Black Ajah = Satan worshipers within the above group (real or based on rumors)
Children of the Light = Knights Templar, and the rumors that exist about that order.

Sisters of the Light = Catholic Nuns, called "Sisters"
Sisters of the Dark = Satan worshipers within the above group (real or based on rumors)
Blood of the Fold = Knights Templar, and the rumors that exist about that order.

Not to mention that Dune included a group of mystical women, and was published well before either of the above.

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1404943' date='Jun 18 2008, 19.06']Kheldar, I saw that you mentioned that you have read Jordan's work, so I ask how you see this issue. Do you see this as plagiarism?[/quote]
No.

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1404943' date='Jun 18 2008, 19.06']If so, how would you justify it? If not, how do you explain the fact that these concepts are carbon copies of those Jordan published just a few years before?[/quote]
See above. I see a common real-world source for all groups. In fact, I think both Jordan and Goodkind owe royalties to the Catholic Church and the Freemasons (who allegedly added to the rumors about the Knights Templar)

There would be no justification for plagiarism. But such accusation requires more proof than a simple similarity, especially when there's what I consider to be a fairly obvious real-world inspirational source for both.

[Kheldar]

[quote name='addicted' post='1405185' date='Jun 18 2008, 21.57']re-reading that book now, haven't gotten there yet :P But if I remember correctly: The soldiers were iffy loyalty to begin with. They were of the IO mentality (again if I am remembering correctly) (is this where she lets them go then hunts them down?) I think I need to know the specifics (passage/scene) that you are speaking of ...I'm getting confused :P[/quote]
I think this is after Kahlan and Chandallen (however that's spelled) went to the city that was destroyed (Ebinissa?). It was pointed out that the soldiers who had wiped out the city wouldn't have done a few things that showed respect for the dead, so somebody else must have been there. They found some Galean troops that had been out on practice maneuvers. Kahlan allowed those soldiers who would not accept her leadership to leave. She was fairly certain (ok, maybe TG showed her as being completely certain) that they would double back to go join the Imperial Order. The loyal troops only attacked them when it was obvious what their plans were.

Kahlan's tactical knowledge is explained as coming from the teaching of her father, who was the king of Galea before being taken by Kahlan's mother as a mate.

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1406069' date='Jun 19 2008, 10.48']That is a problem. But some of the actions aren't portrayed as "good" so much as "necessary".[/quote]

No. They're portrayed as necessary, thus by extention, good because Richard and Kahlan are the good guys. "Necessary" actions, especially morally ambiguous or abhorent ones, are usually followed with some form of remorse or at least second thoughts, "What could I have done differently? This? This? No. Probably not. This? Okay, I've exhausted my options. I don't like what I've done, but in my heart of hearts it was the only choice I had." Mr. Goodkind usually skips this thought process for his characters and they jump right to "I did what I had to, it was the right thing to do." i.e. Myshkin's position on Violet (one I think a lot of us share). How hard would it be for an author to allow his characters a little interal dialogue with themselves to let the readers know they're reading about human being who actually have feelings and/or emotions?