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

[VigoTheCarpathian]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1406069' date='Jun 19 2008, 08.48']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]

True: but like I said, I retain the right to make fun and try to persuade others that it is not necessarily worth their time as a book series.

I'm not sure if you saw my post on the previous page re: how the philosophy starts trumping story, but it sounds like you agree that the later books get more explicit with the underlying philosophy, as opposed to the earlier books, which were more story-driven?

Based on my earlier posting, my position is that:

By not trusting the audience to understand what message he was trying to get across, and having to resort to long speeches and conversations (a la [i]Phantom[/i], where he explains the impossibility of fighting the evil IO to Nicci in a conversation, then has a vision that explains the exact same thing, and then Richard giving a speech to his commanders explaining it again) in order to pound home one idea shows a contempt for the audience.

Both for being stupid (you're not going to be able to pick this up for yourself, so I have to explain it in direct speech, instead of using the story as a vehicle; see my parable examples in the previous post), and for "changing horses in midstream" - starting out with a fantasy story with ideals underpinning it (wizards rules), and then sacrificing the story that the readers "signed up for" in order to bang a gong for 80 pages.

I understand that the latter point probably falls under his perogative as an author (his work is his to do with what he will), but you give me your perspective on the former?

ETA: formatting stuff

[Kheldar]

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1406106' date='Jun 19 2008, 12.03']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?[/quote]
Ahh...I think I see. What you're looking for (and this applies to the desire for realism) is doubt on the part of the character. That's not how the characters are portrayed as acting. Once the main characters act, they don't waste time second-guessing their actions. To do so would undercut one of the main themes of the books...deal with the present, act on what [b]is[/b], not what could have been.

This does miss out on ignoring the potential for growth that comes from introspection.

Would it have been hard for TG to write such introspection into the story? Not at all. In fact, he did at various times...but not usually in depth. That's because the focus is more on how to handle the current situation, not on how it might change how the character will handle a similar situation should it arise again. The changes can be seen in the characters' actions later in the books, when they change tactics. For example, Richard learned from what happened in Soul of the Fire in Ander, and used a different tactic in Bandakar.

[quote name='VigoTheCarpathian' post='1406326' date='Jun 19 2008, 13.28']True: but like I said, I retain the right to make fun and try to persuade others that it is not necessarily worth their time as a book series.

I'm not sure if you saw my post on the previous page re: how the philosophy starts trumping story, but it sounds like you agree that the later books get more explicit with the underlying philosophy, as opposed to the earlier books, which were more story-driven?[/quote]
They definitely do.

[quote name='VigoTheCarpathian' post='1406326' date='Jun 19 2008, 13.28']By not trusting the audience to understand what message he was trying to get across, and having to resort to long speeches and conversations (a la [i]Phantom[/i], where he explains the impossibility of fighting the evil IO to Nicci in a conversation, then has a vision that explains the exact same thing, and then Richard giving a speech to his commanders explaining it again) in order to pound home one idea shows a contempt for the audience.[/quote]
It can be taken that way. It can also be taken as a measure of how important the author considers the point to be. Describe what will happen, have a vision of what will happen, have it happen (at least, in part). Heavy handed? Sure. Potentially boring to read? Absolutely. Contempt for the audience? Uncertain.

[quote name='VigoTheCarpathian' post='1406326' date='Jun 19 2008, 13.28']Both for being stupid (you're not going to be able to pick this up for yourself, so I have to explain it in direct speech, instead of using the story as a vehicle; see my parable examples in the previous post), and for "changing horses in midstream" - starting out with a fantasy story with ideals underpinning it (wizards rules), and then sacrificing the story that the readers "signed up for" in order to bang a gong for 80 pages.[/quote]
Yeah. I can understand how some people would feel this way. The story-telling style has definitely changed, and many people wouldn't like the change. But, as you said after this section, it's the author's prerogative.

[VigoTheCarpathian]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1406457' date='Jun 19 2008, 11.23']...
They definitely do.

It can be taken that way. It can also be taken as a measure of how important the author considers the point to be. Describe what will happen, have a vision of what will happen, have it happen (at least, in part). Heavy handed? Sure. Potentially boring to read? Absolutely. Contempt for the audience? Uncertain.

Yeah. I can understand how some people would feel this way. The story-telling style has definitely changed, and many people wouldn't like the change. But, as you said after this section, it's the author's prerogative.[/quote]

Perhaps disrespect would be a better word for contempt. For me it seems an unintended insult to my/other readers intelligence that an author has to info dump a bunch of philosophy, instead of presenting it as he had in the past.

Regardless, I just take it as the mark of a poor communicator of message, in that there were obviously fans of how it was being communicated in earlier books. If reading a novel is a conversation between author and reader, SoT ends up being the equivalent of 4-5 books of a normal level conversation, and then the author yelling his points loudly, ending with sort of a half-yelled attempted return to conversation for the last book.

[Moosicus]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1406098' date='Jun 19 2008, 12.59']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.[/quote]
IIRC, they were Galean recruits, all mid to late teens, about 5000 of them. When a few refused to follow Kahlan she gave them the opportunity to leave. When they left, Kahlan sent a bunch of her more loyal soldiers to kill all of them. They killed all those who left except for the ringleader, whom they brought back so Kahlan could kill him herself. She used her power on him which revealed that he and the others were planning to go over to the Order (fairly nonsensical in my opinion). Really it was only guesswork on Kahlan's part, but as always, it turns out that the hero was right all along.

ETA: Hi Khel!!

[Kheldar]

[quote name='VigoTheCarpathian' post='1406588' date='Jun 19 2008, 15.23']Perhaps disrespect would be a better word for contempt. For me it seems an unintended insult to my/other readers intelligence that an author has to info dump a bunch of philosophy, instead of presenting it as he had in the past.[/quote]
A valid complaint. Like I've said before, the change in how he was presenting data would be fine with some readers, but was annoying for others. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to, spud.

[quote name='VigoTheCarpathian' post='1406588' date='Jun 19 2008, 15.23']Regardless, I just take it as the mark of a poor communicator of message, in that there were obviously fans of how it was being communicated in earlier books. [b]If reading a novel is a conversation between author and reader, SoT ends up being the equivalent of 4-5 books of a normal level conversation, and then the author yelling his points loudly, ending with sort of a half-yelled attempted return to conversation for the last book.[/b][/quote]
Very nicely put, sir. It clearly imparts your experience with the books, and gives insight into your reasons for disliking the books.

[quote name='Moosicus' post='1406673' date='Jun 19 2008, 16.10']IIRC, they were Galean recruits, all mid to late teens, about 5000 of them. When a few refused to follow Kahlan she gave them the opportunity to leave. When they left, Kahlan sent a bunch of her more loyal soldiers to kill all of them. They killed all those who left except for the ringleader, whom they brought back so Kahlan could do kill him herself. She used her power on him which revealed that he and the others were planning to go over to the Order (fairly nonsensical in my opinion). Really it was only guesswork on Kahlan's part, but as always, it turns out that the hero was right all along.[/quote]
You're close. It's not just that some soldiers left. They also gave reasons for leaving, reasons for their opposition to her proposals, and the "ringleader", as you put it, had argued for at least considering accepting the "peace" offered by the IO....the very people who had butchered the citizens of the city.

The "more loyal" soldiers were the troops that stayed, and they only attacked when it was obvious that the "disloyal" soldiers were indeed going to join the IO soldiers. The boy-leader of the loyal soldiers, when they returned, stated that it was the hardest thing he had ever done.

[quote name='Moosicus' post='1406673' date='Jun 19 2008, 16.10']ETA: Hi Khel!![/quote]
Hey Moose.

[Moosicus]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1406752' date='Jun 19 2008, 17.52']You're close. It's not just that some soldiers left. They also gave reasons for leaving, reasons for their opposition to her proposals, and the "ringleader", as you put it, had argued for at least considering accepting the "peace" offered by the IO....the very people who had butchered the citizens of the city.

The "more loyal" soldiers were the troops that stayed, and they only attacked when it was obvious that the "disloyal" soldiers were indeed going to join the IO soldiers. The boy-leader of the loyal soldiers, when they returned, stated that it was the hardest thing he had ever done.


Hey Moose.[/quote]
Check your source, Khel. The ringleader claimed that he wouldn't fight for a woman, and he wouldn't fight on behalf of the neighboring countries that the IO was headed toward. The loyal soldiers were ordered by Kahlan to hunt down and kill all those that left, despite being "free to go". Those loyal soldiers resented being sent after their former comrades, which was why the ringleader was brought back alive. Nobody knew or believed that they'd go over to the Order until Kahlan made him confess.

[addicted]

Since Khel has graciously fielded most of the recent queries, I will refrain unless someone asks.

[quote name='Jax']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?[/quote]

[quote name='Vigo']By not trusting the audience to understand what message he was trying to get across, and having to resort to long speeches and conversations[/quote]

So from what I am gathering here is that since TG does *not* necessarily do "it" through dialog but instead gives the end result of the thinking process, by the speeches, that he is what...ineffective? Or not to your liking?

I guess I understand what you are saying....but ....I always got the sense of remorse, I did see internal dialog both between characters and w/in their own thought processes. That's one of the reasons why, I could not empathize with Jangang per se, but I did see his perspective. Having known the characters as well as I did/do, I [i]trusted [/i]when specific thought processes were not necessarily mentioned.

[Kheldar]

[quote name='Moosicus' post='1406784' date='Jun 19 2008, 17.10']Check your source, Khel. The ringleader claimed that he wouldn't fight for a woman, and he wouldn't fight on behalf of the neighboring countries that the IO was headed toward. The loyal soldiers were ordered by Kahlan to hunt down and kill all those that left, despite being "free to go". Those loyal soldiers resented being sent after their former comrades, which was why the ringleader was brought back alive. Nobody knew or believed that they'd go over to the Order until Kahlan made him confess.[/quote]
Check yours. They had headed out, in the opposite direction from the Imperial Order (primarily Keltan, some D'Haran, but talking about the Imperial Order) army. North, I believe. The (somewhat skeptical) leader of the loyal soldiers (I can't remember his name at the moment) pointed it out to Kahlan, who said (paraphrased) "They'd hardly head directly towards the Imperial Order right from here. They'll head out in the opposite direction, and once out of sight, they'll turn and go around to the south."

It played out as she said (some would say that's unrealistic, but if the character is supposed to not only be well versed in tactics, but also is adept at reading people, she could make a good evaluation on this point). The ringleader was brought back to confess...in part to prove it to the loyal soldiers, so there would be no doubt. The ones who had done the killing obviously had no doubts (at least, not enough to matter)...they had already killed the rest of the "disloyal" soldiers. So your "nobody knew or believed" is clearly wrong. The confession of the ringleader granted certainty to any who doubted.

I doubt the loyal soldiers would have attacked the "disloyal" troops if they hadn't turned to head towards the Imperial Order. It would have proven that Kahlan was wrong in her assessment, and did not deserve their loyalty. If nobody believed her, why would they have killed the disloyal soldiers to a man except for the ringleader?

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='addicted' post='1406793' date='Jun 19 2008, 16.16']So from what I am gathering here is that since TG does *not* necessarily do "it" through dialog but instead gives the end result of the thinking process, by the speeches, that he is what...ineffective? Or not to your liking?[/quote]

Yes. :P

Really though, to give the end result without letting his audience see how his characters get there (which is in effect showing us, his audience how he gets there and why we should see and believe in the message he wants to project) is pretty much a slap in the face to his audience. By painting the broadest picture he can about what he wants to say and not giving us any looks at the nuts and bolts of the process, he's telling us we're too dumb to understand what he's saying. But, oh yeah, he's done that. Told people they're too dumb and/or young to understand his philosophies.

[Moosicus]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1406803' date='Jun 19 2008, 18.24']Check yours. They had headed out, in the opposite direction from the Imperial Order (primarily Keltan, some D'Haran, but talking about the Imperial Order) army. North, I believe. The (somewhat skeptical) leader of the loyal soldiers (I can't remember his name at the moment) pointed it out to Kahlan, who said (paraphrased) "They'd hardly head directly towards the Imperial Order right from here. They'll head out in the opposite direction, and once out of sight, they'll turn and go around to the south."

It played out as she said (some would say that's unrealistic, but if the character is supposed to not only be well versed in tactics, but also is adept at reading people, she could make a good evaluation on this point). The ringleader was brought back to confess...in part to prove it to the loyal soldiers, so there would be no doubt. The ones who had done the killing obviously had no doubts (at least, not enough to matter)...they had already killed the rest of the "disloyal" soldiers. So your "nobody knew or believed" is clearly wrong. The confession of the ringleader granted certainty to any who doubted.

I doubt the loyal soldiers would have attacked the "disloyal" troops if they hadn't turned to head towards the Imperial Order. It would have proven that Kahlan was wrong in her assessment, and did not deserve their loyalty. If nobody believed her, why would they have killed the disloyal soldiers to a man except for the ringleader?[/quote]
1)Heading in the opposite direction of the Order makes sense if you're going to swing around and join it. It also makes sense if you're just going home.
2)Her evaluation of the deserter (William) was based on about three sentences. So she must be a real whiz to have figured out that he (and the sixty-odd people that went with him) would betray his country and his comrades to fight for the army that had just butchered, raped, and mutilated every person in his capitol city.
3)We don't know very well how it played out, only that according to one, the Captain ordered his men to kill the deserters, and they wept to do it. So it doesn't seem that anyone was convinced of the pending betrayal.
4)The ringleader wasn't brought back to confess. The Captain (Bradley) brought him back and said (paraphrasing) "I thought you'd like to kill him yourself, since he's seemed to have personally offended you." After William confesses, Kahlan asks Brad and the others if they are satisfied, and they are all suitably sheepish. So the Captain didn't believe until the confession. Why kill the deserters if they didn't believe her? They're soldiers who have sworn to obey her, and their captain, whether they like it or not. Had the deserters swung around toward the Order there would have been no doubt left for our pal Bradley, and no reason for him to drag poor William back to Kahlan.

[The Pita]

[quote name='addicted' post='1405185' date='Jun 18 2008, 20.57']Hey Pita...mind if I just call you Pita? :P I *do* remember you.[/quote]
Seeing as the first part of my name could and is possibly intended to offend Terry Goodkind fans, you can.


[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]
Then afterwards, she should have felt remorseful.
Something akin to "I had my brother killed after I threatened my sister with rape... what am I becoming?" would have been an awesome moment.



[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]
I'd tell you them if I remembered them. My argument here is strictly due to a emmory of a book I read once, two years ago. It may have been on book 3.


[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]
Not really...
But you can look if you want.


I hope you become an active member of these boards once this thread dies out. (in 2-7 years)

[addicted]

[quote name='Jax']is pretty much a slap in the face to his audience.[/quote]

To [i]you[/i] ...your opinion. To completely condemn it (and persuade others to not read it vs. judging it on their own) you are stating your opinion is better....and this is where we digress.

[TerraPrime]

Re: El Jax

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1406806' date='Jun 19 2008, 15.26']Really though, to give the end result without letting his audience see how his characters get there (which is in effect showing us, his audience how he gets there and why we should see and believe in the message he wants to project) is pretty much a slap in the face to his audience. By painting the broadest picture he can about what he wants to say and not giving us any looks at the nuts and bolts of the process, he's telling us we're too dumb to understand what he's saying.[/quote]


It is more than that, imo.

The absence of the internal dialogues demonstrating moral struggles leaves the readers with no ground on which to presume that the intention was good. Perhaps the slaughtering of peace-protesters is indeed a morally good action, given the situation. But the author did not let us inside the character's head to examine it. The author gave us no tools with which to evaluate the moral rubric of the action. Instead, the readers are told that it is good, and that the results are awesome. I don't think it's as much about thinking the readers are stupid, though there is some of that, but rather, the author just comes across as lazy. Or incompetent. Or both.


Re: Kheldan

[quote]Would it have been hard for TG to write such introspection into the story? Not at all. In fact, he did at various times...but not usually in depth. That's because the focus is more on how to handle the current situation, not on how it might change how the character will handle a similar situation should it arise again. The changes can be seen in the characters' actions later in the books, when they change tactics. For example, Richard learned from what happened in Soul of the Fire in Ander, and used a different tactic in Bandakar.[/quote]

I do not find this justification particularly convincing. What does it mean that Goodkind wants to focus the story on the "now" and not what could have been? Do Richard and Khalan make decisions without consideration of potential outcomes at all? Or is it that they are so perfect that any decisions they made are good, by default? Or perhaps that they are so prescient that they know instinctively which course is the right one and therefore have no need to contemplate the options?

In the end, though, I think this is only a symptom of the illness. Goodkind's characters lack internal (or external ones, for that matter) dialogues that reveal their motivations and thinking processes because, imo, they had none. They are not acting as imagined people with a separate set of thinking process. Rather, they are marionettes controlled by Goodkind to act out a morality play. The characters are not given internally consistent set of principles and foibles because that gets in the way of the morality play on stage. Richard and Khalan (and the other supporting casts) have no souls, so to speak. They are the characters that are not characters. Books like that make for very poor reading for many of us because they are not convincing. In essence, Khalan ordered the soldiers who left to be captured and killed, and then it was revealed that they were traitors, not because it was in line with Khalan's personality or her character, but because this is the part of the book where Goodkind wants to make a point about those who would consider accepting peace offers from the enemy, i.e. "look, they are all traitors, and therefore deserve to die."

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='addicted' post='1406856' date='Jun 19 2008, 16.58']To [i]you[/i] ...your opinion. To completely condemn it (and persuade others to not read it vs. judging it on their own) you are stating your opinion is better....and this is where we digress.[/quote]



[i]Haddonfield, NJ: Second Question - I've noticed similarities between your Sword of Truth series and Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series...(Black Sisterhood vs. Black Ajah; The Order vs. The Seanchan; Richard vs. Rand both discovering their powers, both have Nameless evil Gods...etc.) I've often voiced my suspicion that these two series might be occurring on the same world...how crazy am I?

Terry Goodkind: If you notice a similarity, then you probably aren't old enough to read my books.[/i]

Okay, not specific to my above statement, but it helps show a pattern. I'm still sloggin through interviews (they're not easy to read, lots of ego in between those words you know!) to help my argument and shore up my belief/opinion.

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='addicted' post='1406856' date='Jun 19 2008, 16.58']To [i]you[/i] ...your opinion. To completely condemn it (and persuade others to not read it vs. judging it on their own) you are stating your opinion is better....and this is where we digress.[/quote]

Terra also says what I was trying to say a bit better.

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1406069' date='Jun 19 2008, 08.48']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.[/quote]
I can see the connection between the Aes Sedai/Sisters of the Light and Catholic Nuns. But I also see that Terry deviated from this "real life inspiration" in [i]exactly[/i] the same manner as Jordan. Where as AS/SotL are both completely matriarchal societies, Catholic Nuns are in reality only a small part of a heavily patriarchal society. Catholic nuns do not try to destroy/control their male counterparts, while both the AS and the SotL do. Catholic nuns are not ageless, while both the AS and SotL are.

I don't really see all that much connection between Children of the Light/Blood of the Fold and the Knights Templar. I don't recall the Knights Templar's sole mission as being to kill all Catholic nuns.


[quote name='Kheldar' post='1406069' date='Jun 19 2008, 08.48']Not to mention that Dune included a group of mystical women, and was published well before either of the above.[/quote]
Now I've only read the first [i]Dune[/i] novel, and that more than ten years ago, so I might be wrong here, but as I recall the Aes Sedai deviate from the Bene Gesserit enough that they can be called derivative but really not plagiarized. The same can't be said of the Sisters of the Light.

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1406069' date='Jun 19 2008, 08.48']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.[/quote]
There seem to be two scenarios here:

Scenario 1) Terry Goodkind takes real life inspirations and twists them in EXACTLY the same way as Robert Jordan twisted those self same inspirations a mere four years before. Terry Goodkind does this completely independently, with no knowledge of what Robert Jordan did.

Scenario 2) Terry Goodkind sets out to write a fantasy epic four years after Robert Jordan's WoT series becomes a huge success. Terry plagiarizes Jordan in an attempt to mimic Jordan's success.

Which of these two scenarios seems more likely?


Speaking of the Catholic Church, this brings up another question I have for you: As a Catholic I was deeply insulted by [i]Faith of the Fallen[/i]. How can you, as a Catholic, not be insulted by the naked disdain (bordering on hatred) that Terry shows for our Church in that novel?

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1407013' date='Jun 19 2008, 19.06']IScenario 2) Terry Goodkind sets out to write a fantasy epic four years after Robert Jordan's WoT series becomes a huge success. Terry plagiarizes Jordan in an attempt to mimic Jordan's success.[/quote]

Now, now, Mysh. Let's be careful with the word "plagerize". Let's say, "borrowed heavily" instead, eh? :P

[The Stranger]

may i once again reiterate: JST does not plagiarize, because by his own proud admission he does not usually read books by any other author. this includes all fantasy, which does not write in any case.

peasant.

[Zulofritter]

Considering the warnings on this forum, the series doesn't sound like my bag. And having just endured [i]Atlas Shrugged[/i], it's pretty likely that I'll never read the fiction of another hardliner Objectivist author. (I gave it to a libertarian friend of mine, saying 'You know, altruism'.)

However, Addicted, Kheldar, I like you guys and hope you stick around. Even if you never make it to the books, the off-topic areas are always entertaining.

[Kheldar]

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1406806' date='Jun 19 2008, 17.26']Yes. :P

Really though, to give the end result without letting his audience see how his characters get there (which is in effect showing us, his audience how he gets there and why we should see and believe in the message he wants to project) is pretty much a slap in the face to his audience.[/quote]
Or merely is a writing style that appeals to some people but offends others.

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1406806' date='Jun 19 2008, 17.26']But, oh yeah, he's done that. Told people they're too dumb and/or young to understand his philosophies.[/quote]
Yes, he has. So he's severely lacking in tact. I've met worse.

[quote name='Moosicus' post='1406844' date='Jun 19 2008, 17.51']1)Heading in the opposite direction of the Order makes sense if you're going to swing around and join it. It also makes sense if you're just going home.[/quote]
The heading out in the opposite direction was fine. I don't have my copy handy (it's about 100 miles away right now), but I seem to recall Bradley (thanks for getting the name) saying that they did as Kahlan had predicted: turned to head south towards the Order.

[quote name='Moosicus' post='1406844' date='Jun 19 2008, 17.51']2)Her evaluation of the deserter (William) was based on about three sentences. So she must be a real whiz to have figured out that he (and the sixty-odd people that went with him) would betray his country and his comrades to fight for the army that had just butchered, raped, and mutilated every person in his capitol city.[/quote]
Yep. Pretty astute of her, wasn't it?

[quote name='Moosicus' post='1406844' date='Jun 19 2008, 17.51']3)We don't know very well how it played out, only that according to one, the Captain ordered his men to kill the deserters, and they wept to do it. So it doesn't seem that anyone was convinced of the pending betrayal.[/quote]
Really? For someone who appreciates realistic behavior in his characters, you seem to be ignoring an important facet of behavior. Would a soldier, on the word of a leader he's never met, kill his friends, people he had grown up with and played with, comrades-in-arm, if there wasn't more than just her say so?

[quote name='Moosicus' post='1406844' date='Jun 19 2008, 17.51']4)The ringleader wasn't brought back to confess. The Captain (Bradley) brought him back and said (paraphrasing) "I thought you'd like to kill him yourself, since he's seemed to have personally offended you." After William confesses, Kahlan asks Brad and the others if they are satisfied, and they are all suitably sheepish.[/quote]
Again, more realistic behavior. Even after seeing them alter course so as to head towards the Order army, they would still have doubts. These weren't just "other men from our city", they were friends and fellow soldiers, men they had bonded with both growing up and while training to be soldiers. People want to believe the best about friends....that will keep doubt alive even in the face of what seems to be clear evidence of betrayal. Kind of how a wife will accept back a cheating husband who has had numerous affairs, or stays with an abusive husband, or any of many other similar examples.

The confession removed all doubt.

[quote name='Moosicus' post='1406844' date='Jun 19 2008, 17.51']So the Captain didn't believe until the confession. Why kill the deserters if they didn't believe her? They're soldiers who have sworn to obey her, and their captain, whether they like it or not.[/quote]
If they really had such extreme doubts, they would have captured more soldiers than just the ring leader. They had no problem ignoring her orders in order to bring just William back (I presume you have his name correct)...they could have held 60+ men prisoner until verification came in the form of confession. I hope you don't think that more of the 60+ men (minus one) couldn't have been captured alive by whatever size force was sent out (from a group of 5000 or so).

[quote name='Moosicus' post='1406844' date='Jun 19 2008, 17.51']Had the deserters swung around toward the Order there would have been no doubt left for our pal Bradley, and no reason for him to drag poor William back to Kahlan.[/quote]
Like I said above, lingering doubts would still exist.

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1406862' date='Jun 19 2008, 18.02']The absence of the internal dialogues demonstrating moral struggles leaves the readers with no ground on which to presume that the intention was good. Perhaps the slaughtering of peace-protesters is indeed a morally good action, given the situation. But the author did not let us inside the character's head to examine it. The author gave us no tools with which to evaluate the moral rubric of the action. Instead, the readers are told that it is good, and that the results are awesome. I don't think it's as much about thinking the readers are stupid, though there is some of that, but rather, the author just comes across as lazy. Or incompetent. Or both.[/quote]
By the time you've reached that point in the series, you should be able to understand how the character thinks, and already have the tools for evaluating the moral rubric of the action. Instead of the author being lazy or incompetent, perhaps he's trying to force the reader to think.

The reader had already, in that book, been slapped in the head multiple times about the necessity of opposing evil, sometimes with force. Neutrality is not an option when your opponent wants to kill you. Peace-at-any-price, faced with people who want to control your lives and/or kill you, leads to death or enslavement.

Those "peace protesters" were taking a side. They chose to side with Nicolas (I think that was his name).

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1406862' date='Jun 19 2008, 18.02']I do not find this justification particularly convincing. What does it mean that Goodkind wants to focus the story on the "now" and not what could have been?[/quote]
Second-guessing past actions doesn't help deal with the result of that past action, it helps prevent a recurrence of errors. TG had several characters reference a phrase: Think on the solution, not the problem. When a mistake was made, lingering on the mistake doesn't solve the problems caused by the mistake.

Instead of showing introspection all the time (TG does, at times, include that), growth and change is shown through later actions. Richard let passion rule reason at one critical point, with disastrous results. He learned from that mistake, and made sure not to let it happen again.

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1406862' date='Jun 19 2008, 18.02']Do Richard and Khalan make decisions without consideration of potential outcomes at all?[/quote]
Of course not.

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1406862' date='Jun 19 2008, 18.02']Or is it that they are so perfect that any decisions they made are good, by default?[/quote]
Of course not. They make mistakes.

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1406862' date='Jun 19 2008, 18.02']Or perhaps that they are so prescient that they know instinctively which course is the right one and therefore have no need to contemplate the options?[/quote]
They contemplate the options. But once they reach a decision, they throw themselves behind that decision 100%.

There are various times in the books where characters express doubts about the course they have chosen. Such instances may not be frequent, but they're there.

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1406862' date='Jun 19 2008, 18.02']In the end, though, I think this is only a symptom of the illness. Goodkind's characters lack internal (or external ones, for that matter) dialogues that reveal their motivations and thinking processes because, imo, they had none. They are not acting as imagined people with a separate set of thinking process. Rather, they are marionettes controlled by Goodkind to act out a morality play. The characters are not given internally consistent set of principles and foibles because that gets in the way of the morality play on stage.[/quote]
I disagree. They have definite principles. They have logical, rational reasons for the decisions they make (ones where you might expect doubt and introspection).

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1406862' date='Jun 19 2008, 18.02']Richard and Khalan (and the other supporting casts) have no souls, so to speak. They are the characters that are not characters. Books like that make for very poor reading for many of us because they are not convincing. In essence, Khalan ordered the soldiers who left to be captured and killed, and then it was revealed that they were traitors, not because it was in line with Khalan's personality or her character, but because this is the part of the book where Goodkind wants to make a point about those who would consider accepting peace offers from the enemy, i.e. "look, they are all traitors, and therefore deserve to die."[/quote]
To use a real world comparison, let me offer you a hypothetical. What would you say about a group of people who, after seeing Nazi death camps, chose to not fight, or chose to join with the Nazis? It wasn't merely accepting "peace offers", it was intentionally ignoring the atrocities committed by the group. After seeing the carnage at Ebinissia, they were still willing to talk "peace" with the soldiers who did it? After all that Nicolas the Slide did, the "peace protesters" in Bandakar were willing to accept such actions rather than fight against them? Not just that, but they would oppose violent action against Nicolas?

Richard and Kahlan's reasons for their actions are understandable, without the requirement of internal dialog. Considering that to be a poor reading experience is personal taste, not a measure of how good a book is. Perhaps TG didn't do a good job of making the reasons clear in particular instances, but after being hammered over the head time and again with the logic, lack of understanding the thought processes of the major characters can't really be blamed on a lack of internal dialog. I suggest, instead, that it comes from a rejection of the philosophy. If you, as a reader, don't (at the very least) conditionally accept the philosophy, then you won't necessarily see the logical reasons the characters would chose certain actions.

This is getting long, so more responses will come in the next post.