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

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote]Unless you agree with that ideology. Don't be insulted, don't take him seriously, don't read them. I dare say other authors (I am obviously not as well read as you are) have manipulated circumstances to achieve a result. You don't agree with the ideology, so you don't agree with the method or result. Fair enough. I'm not here to change your mind, just to offer an opinion.[/quote]

When you write fiction for the primary (or even large secondary) purpose of exploring or promoting a philosophy you are essentially presenting a hypothesis. Since you're promoting that particular philosophy its rather obvious what conclusion you'll draw, but the most important part isn't the conclusion. Its how you get there. The testing and counter-arguments that you present against the hypothesis throughout the story. And if the hypothesis is not rigorously tested in the story; if events and characters are made purposely stupid or selectively naive just to nudge too easily and conveniently towards the desired outcome, than you may as well have said nothing. Because you've certainly proved nothing. Haven't effectively argued. And would be better off just sticking to sword and sorcery sans-message since you're presenting it with all the subtlety and eloquence of Ann Coulter with about as much substance.

Its not that I disagree. (though clearly I do) But I can recognize a persuasive, intelligent argument presented fairly and with sound reasoning. TG has none of that. He has purposely and laughably weak strawmen standing in for the opposing ideologies whose proponents inevitably see the error of their ways or (much more often) fail and die horribly. Whether you're looking at them as characters or as ideological counterpoint constructs, they don't have a shred of realism. And most approach the level of caricature.

[quote]Are you saying there is no degree of realism in TG's books? The extremes of characters as near-absolute good and near-absolute evil is unrealistic, but should that really matter?[/quote]

If you're holding out any pretense of serious philosophical discussion through your works, than yes. Plausible and mostly realistic characters and reactions are necessary for the examination to have any merit.


[quote]Not necessarily. Philosophical discussions can easily revolve around caricatures. Realistic behavior is not an absolute requirement.[/quote]

If the characters are caricatures and the realism absent, than what possible merit could those philosophical discussions have? Since they're pretty much divorced from anything remotely resembling reality.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

Hello, dear Goodkind-fan! Good to see you here.

I have a question about a particularly controversial part of the books. It is the chapter where Kahlan's half brother Harold comes to tell Kahlan that Galea wants to remain neutral in the war. Kahlan answers this by arguing with him, declaring war on Galea, threatening the queen with gang-rape and finally killing Harold.

The quote is repeated here for convenience by our good friend the Moose: [url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=11101&st=260&p=423653&#entry423653"]http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showt...mp;#entry423653[/url]

What could be a fan's reaction to this chapter? Is it yet another example of the protagonists not being perfect, or does Goodkind really mean this was the right thing to do?

[Kheldar]

[quote name='Il Chiarimento' post='1401112' date='Jun 16 2008, 16.22']If you're holding out any pretense of serious philosophical discussion through your works, than yes. Plausible and mostly realistic characters and reactions are necessary for the examination to have any merit.[/quote]
I disagree. When investigating the merits of a philosophy, having absolutes of the extreme examples allows a broad review of the philosophy. There is definite value, in fact a necessity, of looking at the "perfect" embodiment of the philosophy, and looking at the alleged polar opposite.

[quote name='Il Chiarimento' post='1401112' date='Jun 16 2008, 16.22']If the characters are caricatures and the realism absent, than what possible merit could those philosophical discussions have? Since they're pretty much divorced from anything remotely resembling reality.[/quote]
It tests the philosophy directly. If a near-perfect embodiment of a philosophy doesn't "work", then there's a problem with the philosophy. Having "gray" areas can actually confuse the issue, since one is looking at an amalgam of "proper" philosophy mixed with "improper" thinking.

More in-depth investigations would involve classic "what-if" scenarios. Even then, an absolutely "good" character doesn't present a problem for evaluating the philosophy.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote]I disagree. When investigating the merits of a philosophy, having absolutes of the extreme examples allows a broad review of the philosophy.[/quote]

Having absolutes to the extremes generally means that you're not giving a fair, honest, or accurate depiction of the philosophy in question. And considering he's using the series in part to show the glories of objectivism over socialism, communism, pacifism, and all the other -ism's, its more than a bit unfair and intellectually dishonest (or lazy) to misrepresent those 'ism's' to absurd extremes.

[quote]There is definite value, in fact a necessity, of looking at the "perfect" embodiment of the philosophy, and looking at the alleged polar opposite.[/quote]

Sure there is. But that's not what he's doing. He's grossly miscasting them as absurd and extreme caricatures that a proponent or scholar of the philosophy would barely recognize. He's pulling the O'Reilly tactic. Which is booking the biggest, most incompetent moron you can find for a position you disagree with, let him make a complete fool of himself, than dismiss the entire position because their 'representative' couldn't make a persuasive case. There is no merit to that other than clumsy, heavy-handed propaganda. Its certainly not debate, nor discussion, nor analysis. Its a dog and pony show where you cripple the other pony.

[CelticBrennus]

[quote]If a near-perfect embodiment of a philosophy doesn't "work", then there's a problem with the philosophy.[/quote]

But since this is fiction, Goodkind can create any outcome he wishes, and resolve any problem that may arise

[Myshkin]

Hi Khel. I wanted to thank you for editing Mystar's post to remove my email address a few months back.

Anyway back on topic: a few posts back you asked us if our favorite characters are always 100% honorable. I think you may have misunderstood the point people here were trying to make about Dick and Kahlan's actions. Of course our favorite characters are never 100% honorable, but the difference is that said characters are not put forward by the author as 100% honorable. Terry has created Richard and Kahlan as the embodiments of all that is Good and Right. Terry has said on more than one occasion that he wants his readers to ask "What Would Richard Do" when faced with tough situations. The problem being that what Richard would do might well be to kick a child in the face or order the slaughter of unarmed civilians. You see, Terry has made it so that [i]anything[/i] Dick or Kahlan might do is the right and honorable thing to do, including torture, murder, and rape. Do you see the difference now?

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1400954' date='Jun 16 2008, 12.08']Is it worth the time and effort some people put in to not only mocking the books, but actively trying to convince others to not read the books?[/quote]
It was worth it to me. I read everything the people here had to say about the books, bought the first one (used) anyway, hated it for all the reasons they gave, and am now in no danger of spending time or effort, or money, on the other nine.

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1401000' date='Jun 16 2008, 12.26']But is it really intellectually honest for people to stereotype all TG fans, or their viewpoints?[/quote]
We have an entire thread about this somewhere...

[quote]Is it fair to those who enjoy the story, even though there may be problems with the philosophy or the method used to impart it to the readers?[/quote]
Is what fair? The stereotyping?

[quote]Does it somehow prove that the books are poorly written, or that such fans are intellectually inferior, or that we're mindless worshipers of TG?[/quote]
While still not certain what "it" is referring to, I'll say: The writing prooves itself poor with no outside influence, such fans are not necessarily intellectually inferior yet certainly intellectually different, and possibly.

[quote]Can we just have different tastes in books without the vitriol?[/quote]
What vitriol are you referring to?

[Kheldar]

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1401278' date='Jun 16 2008, 18.36']Hi Khel. I wanted to thank you for editing Mystar's post to remove my email address a few months back.[/quote]
Publishing somebody's personal information (even an e-mail address) is wrong, plain and simple.

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1401278' date='Jun 16 2008, 18.36']Anyway back on topic: a few posts back you asked us if our favorite characters are always 100% honorable. I think you may have misunderstood the point people here were trying to make about Dick and Kahlan's actions. Of course our favorite characters are never 100% honorable, but the difference is that said characters are not put forward by the author as 100% honorable.[/quote]
Like I said upthread, I don't really care what the author thinks he is writing...I just may disagree with him.

That said, I don't think TG has said Richard always does the right thing. Of course, there are things that TG has had Richard (and others) do that I consider dishonorable but he doesn't seem to have a problem with.

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1401278' date='Jun 16 2008, 18.36']Terry has created Richard and Kahlan as the embodiments of all that is Good and Right.[/quote]
Good and Right, but not Perfect.

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1401278' date='Jun 16 2008, 18.36']Terry has said on more than one occasion that he wants his readers to ask "What Would Richard Do" when faced with tough situations.[/quote]
A lofty goal.

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1401278' date='Jun 16 2008, 18.36']The problem being that what Richard would do might well be to kick a child in the face or order the slaughter of unarmed civilians.[/quote]
Unlikely. I know you're stuck on those issues, and that's fine. Disagreeing with such things is your right.

As it turns out, I agree with you on the scene with Violet. I disagree with you on the unarmed civilians, however. If you'd like to explore that further, let me know.

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1401278' date='Jun 16 2008, 18.36']You see, Terry has made it so that [i]anything[/i] Dick or Kahlan might do is the right and honorable thing to do, including torture, murder, and rape.[/quote]
Has he forced you to accept that? Because I haven't had a problem remaining an Admin at TG.net while holding a contrary view on some issues...including Objectivism itself.

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1401278' date='Jun 16 2008, 18.36']Do you see the difference now?[/quote]
What difference? If you were trying to compare TG's characters to somebody else, you failed to include the other characters. All you've done is point out problems (some with which I agree) with believing that TG's characters are Right, Good, and Perfect.

[Kheldar]

[quote name='Il Chiarimento' post='1401236' date='Jun 16 2008, 17.54']Having absolutes to the extremes generally means that you're not giving a fair, honest, or accurate depiction of the philosophy in question.[/quote]
Not completely, no, but it's useful to examine the broad positions.

[quote name='Il Chiarimento' post='1401236' date='Jun 16 2008, 17.54']And considering he's using the series in part to show the glories of objectivism over socialism, communism, pacifism, and all the other -ism's, its more than a bit unfair and intellectually dishonest (or lazy) to misrepresent those 'ism's' to absurd extremes.[/quote]
Or it's a simplification that shows his view of those other "isms".

[quote name='Il Chiarimento' post='1401236' date='Jun 16 2008, 17.54']Sure there is. But that's not what he's doing. He's grossly miscasting them as absurd and extreme caricatures that a proponent or scholar of the philosophy would barely recognize. He's pulling the O'Reilly tactic. Which is booking the biggest, most incompetent moron you can find for a position you disagree with, let him make a complete fool of himself, than dismiss the entire position because their 'representative' couldn't make a persuasive case. There is no merit to that other than clumsy, heavy-handed propaganda. Its certainly not debate, nor discussion, nor analysis. Its a dog and pony show where you cripple the other pony.[/quote]
Well, we'll just have to disagree on this point. I see merit even in caricature when comparing philosophies. One just needs to keep in mind what position the author is coming from when evaluating those caricatures.

TG, for his claims of at least partial Objectivism, is not going to write a fictional story that objectively compares his philosophy to other philosophies. To expect that is illogical and unreasonable.

[quote name='CelticBrennus' post='1401275' date='Jun 16 2008, 18.32']But since this is fiction, Goodkind can create any outcome he wishes, and resolve any problem that may arise[/quote]
Of course....the same is true of any author.

[Kheldar]

[quote name='efendi 'in kemik' post='1401351' date='Jun 16 2008, 20.08']It was worth it to me. I read everything the people here had to say about the books, bought the first one (used) anyway, hated it for all the reasons they gave, and am now in no danger of spending time or effort, or money, on the other nine.[/quote]
You were also prejudiced against it from the onset, with your view colored by what you had read here.

[quote name='efendi 'in kemik' post='1401351' date='Jun 16 2008, 20.08']We have an entire thread about this somewhere...[/quote]
Only one?

[quote name='efendi 'in kemik' post='1401351' date='Jun 16 2008, 20.08']Is what fair? The stereotyping?[/quote]
Tell me...do I match the stereotype?

[quote name='efendi 'in kemik' post='1401351' date='Jun 16 2008, 20.08']While still not certain what "it" is referring to, I'll say: The writing prooves itself poor with no outside influence, such fans are not necessarily intellectually inferior yet certainly intellectually different, and possibly.[/quote]
Different "it" in this case. I'll have to go back and reread what I wrote and what I was responding to, because I wasn't clear enough in this part...apologies.

The writing is poor by some standards, but sufficient by other standards. Accepting "sufficient" writing, and getting past that (if necessary) to enjoy the story is possible, and doesn't require the readers/fans to have room-temperature IQs.

[quote name='efendi 'in kemik' post='1401351' date='Jun 16 2008, 20.08']What vitriol are you referring to?[/quote]
You've read every thread and every word on this board (and even every post in this thread) and can't see any vitriol? The dripping sarcasm, the scorn, the derision that laces some posts here (blessedly few thus far in this thread) should be fairly obvious. If you can judge the quality of writing for TG, you must be an editor at Bantam or TOR, and surely should be able to recognize such in written form. (That's sarcasm, in case you needed the help.)

[CelticBrennus]

[quote]TG, for his claims of at least partial Objectivism, is not going to write a fictional story that objectively compares his philosophy to other philosophies. To expect that is illogical and unreasonable.[/quote]

So what you are saying is that Objectivism is a philosophically weak doctrine that is incapable of surviving in a discourse without artificially weakening the other position through deliberate misrepresentation of its position? Or that Goodkind is simply such a poor author that he cannot think of any way to discuss his philosophy in an intellectually honest manner?

[quote]Of course....the same is true of any author.[/quote]

Yes, and it is what separates the good and the bad authors. The good can present a philosophic theme, or examine an idea in their writing, without being intellectually dishonest as to the substance of its critique.

[quote]Or it's a simplification that shows his view of those other "isms".[/quote]

But the issue is that he gets those other "isms" wrong, or is deliberately misrepresenting them.

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1401491' date='Jun 16 2008, 19.33']You were also prejudiced against it from the onset, with your view colored by what you had read here.[/quote]
That usually has the opposite effect on me, which is why I bought the book anyway.

[quote]Only one?[/quote]
On stereotyping: right or wrong? Just the one recently.

[quote]Tell me...do I match the stereotype?[/quote]
I hardly know you. Or the stereotype for that matter. I'm familiar with Mystar and his time trolling here, so assuming he's the stereotype, then no.

[quote]Different "it" in this case. I'll have to go back and reread what I wrote and what I was responding to, because I wasn't clear enough in this part...apologies.[/quote]
No worries; you've got a lot on your plate here.

[quote]The writing is poor by some standards, but sufficient by other standards. Accepting "sufficient" writing, and getting past that (if necessary) to enjoy the story is possible, and doesn't require the readers/fans to have room-temperature IQs.[/quote]
Agreed.

[quote]You've read every thread and every word on this board (and even every post in this thread) and can't see any vitriol? The dripping sarcasm, the scorn, the derision that laces some posts here (blessedly few thus far in this thread) should be fairly obvious. If you can judge the quality of writing for TG, you must be an editor at Bantam or TOR, and surely should be able to recognize such in written form.[/quote]
If you come here, to post in this thread, you'll/you've be/been given the respect due, or this forum will self-police itself to do so soonest. This thread is about open discussion.

If you read the "Make fun of Terry Goodking" threads, you'd best believe you're going to read people making fucking fun of Terry Goodkind. That sort of vitriol is the point. For fun. For people that find it funny.

For what it's worth, I don't go over to Goodkind sites and start shit there, and I don't condone it if it happens.

[quote](That's sarcasm, in case you needed the help.)[/quote]
Well, thanks for not being a dick about it.

(See, I can do it too!)

[Kheldar]

[quote name='CelticBrennus' post='1401502' date='Jun 16 2008, 22.40']So what you are saying is that Objectivism is a philosophically weak doctrine that is incapable of surviving in a discourse without artificially weakening the other position through deliberate misrepresentation of its position? Or that Goodkind is simply such a poor author that he cannot think of any way to discuss his philosophy in an intellectually honest manner?[/quote]
*sigh*
Neither. What I'm saying is that you seem to have an unrealistic expectation with regards to TG's presentation of his philosophy and how he portrays other philosophies. You're not reading an attempted objective textbook on modern philosophy, you're reading (or not) a series of [i]fictional novels[/i] which aim to impart the author's personal philosophy. Goodkind isn't writing a doctoral thesis, he's describing his personal views and opinions on the various "isms".

[quote name='CelticBrennus' post='1401502' date='Jun 16 2008, 22.40']Yes, and it is what separates the good and the bad authors. The good can present a philosophic theme, or examine an idea in their writing, without being intellectually dishonest as to the substance of its critique.[/quote]
Again, we have different expectations in our authors, and different definitions of what makes a good author. For me, a good author is one who tells a story in such a way that I don't want to put the book down. In fiction, intellectual honesty isn't even a consideration for me...I don't evaluate fiction on such a basis, any more than I look at the scientific plausibility of all of the Science Fiction I read (I like both "hard" and "soft" science fiction). It's not a deal breaker for me.

[quote name='CelticBrennus' post='1401502' date='Jun 16 2008, 22.40']But the issue is that he gets those other "isms" wrong, or is deliberately misrepresenting them.[/quote]
Or is merely telling you how he views them, or he's expressing what he sees as the ultimate end of such "isms". Take, for example, the Imperial Order and the Old World. Is it misrepresentation of Communism? All have their minimum needs met (sort of). There are bread lines (which certainly existed in the Soviet Union under imperfect Communism). There is abuse of the system (which is true of any system, really), taken to an extreme perhaps. It's a possible end result of following Communism...and quite likely close to what TG thinks would be the end result of Communism followed for an extended period of time on a large-scale basis.

Is it intellectual dishonesty or deliberate misrepresentation to express ones opinion about where following a certain belief will lead?

[quote name='efendi 'in kemik' post='1401526' date='Jun 16 2008, 23.00']That usually has the opposite effect on me, which is why I bought the book anyway.[/quote]
*shrug*
We all react differently. For example, I rapidly get tired of the "hot new thing", and purposely avoid it as long as possible. I didn't read the first Harry Potter book until the fourth was out (and it was the only one I read). I didn't read The DaVinci Code until about a year after the movie came out. I avoid TV programs like the plague.

[quote name='efendi 'in kemik' post='1401526' date='Jun 16 2008, 23.00']I hardly know you. Or the stereotype for that matter. I'm familiar with Mystar and his time trolling here, so assuming he's the stereotype, then no.[/quote]
mystar is much better at communicating orally...some of his posts have been misconstrued...he knows what he intended, but it doesn't always come out in print the way he wanted. (Yes, he is a personal friend of mine...that hasn't stopped me from being honest about his behavior in the past). He's also a personal friend of Goodkind's, and his loyalty to his friends is extreme. Keep that in mind when you read his reaction to TG mockery, and put yourself in his position. What would your reaction be to such mockery of a close friend?

[quote name='efendi 'in kemik' post='1401526' date='Jun 16 2008, 23.00']No worries; you've got a lot on your plate here.[/quote]
Thanks. I've been some places where such confusion would be used to score an "aha!" point ;)

[quote name='efendi 'in kemik' post='1401526' date='Jun 16 2008, 23.00']If you come here, to post in this thread, you'll/you've be/been given the respect due, or this forum will self-police itself to do so soonest. This thread is about open discussion.[/quote]
Similar to most every place I've ever posted online...including the two boards I visit regularly (tg.net being one of them, of course).

[quote name='efendi 'in kemik' post='1401526' date='Jun 16 2008, 23.00']If you read the "Make fun of Terry Goodking" threads, you'd best believe you're going to read people making fucking fun of Terry Goodkind. That sort of vitriol is the point. For fun. For people that find it funny.[/quote]
I find such humor to be stupid, and consider those who enjoy such humor to be immature (at best).

[quote name='efendi 'in kemik' post='1401526' date='Jun 16 2008, 23.00']For what it's worth, I don't go over to Goodkind sites and start shit there, and I don't condone it if it happens.[/quote]
I appreciate that. But it's not just shit-stirring that's annoying. The latest foray, for example, came under the guise of asking an allegedly honest question, and when the reaction was less than friendly (the mods caught on quickly as to who it probably was), it's then used to justify holding onto a stereotype about TG fans. It's like saying "Dogs bite", pulling a dog's tail, getting bitten, and saying "See? I told you all dogs bite."

If anything, that's more annoying than simple shit-stirrers.

[quote name='efendi 'in kemik' post='1401526' date='Jun 16 2008, 23.00']Well, thanks for not being a dick about it.

(See, I can do it too!)[/quote]
Touché. :cheers:

[The Stranger]

[quote name='CelticBrennus' post='1401502' date='Jun 16 2008, 23.40']So what you are saying is that Objectivism is a philosophically weak doctrine that is incapable of surviving in a discourse without artificially weakening the other position through deliberate misrepresentation of its position? Or that Goodkind is simply such a poor author that he cannot think of any way to discuss his philosophy in an intellectually honest manner?[/quote]

perhaps he is even saying that it is the product of a Disorganized Mind Filled With Invalid Concepts.

on the utility of extremes in proving philosophy:

there is a long tradition of doing so quite successfully by some of the best thinkers in human history: Plato's Cave, Voltaire's Candide, Kafka's The Trial and Nietsche's Also Sprach Zarathustra come to mind.

The glaring difference between these and Tairy's omni-screed is the fact that the former are explicitly read for their philosophical value; very few people are reading feverishly from page to page of Zarathustra intent on knowing whether or not he dies in the end. There is an intellectual honesty to this kind of philosophical representation that I don't see evident in the mentality of SOT readers; they try to defend philosophical ideals within the logic of a story which as Kheldar has already mentioned is *snicker snicker* set in a world containing magic. As such there is a tactical attempt to have it both ways: the story is used as a vector for Important Human Themes but the logical coherency of the themes is also defensible via the suspension of disbelief required for the reading of a fantasy novel. Ergo we end up with situations where little girls are kicked into a coma and the following exegesis becomes possible: the act might not be defensible in terms of human morality but one must consider Richard's frame of mind but at the same time this is an important exploration of human reaction to torture which cannot be read literally.

This is not an attempt to strawman the two intelligent apologists for JST in this thread--it is an amalgamation of two different sources. Source 1 explains that the entire episode must be seen for its philosophical insight--this has been voiced by Tairy fans in several different fora. Source 2 is Tairy himself, who justifies the action in terms of Richard's mental state at the time. Which is it, and what method of reading are we supposed to use in reading this story? I'm more or less paid to be a professional reader, so I approach every book with a strategy, because as previously mentioned there is no such thing as an editorially neutral book. I know how to approach a philosophical work, I know how I need to approach an academic treatise, and I know how to read a fantasy work (which is 'with dread' when it comes to a certain author). I do not know how to read Tairy, however, and it has nothing to do with the depth of themes--I've read half the Buddhist and Hindu canons, so don't try to sell me on that one. Instead, it is because Tairy is duplicitous in the representation of his works--he has taken his authorial license as a fantasy author (a profession he will not publicly admit to having) as an aegis behind which to construct an unassailable philosophical edifice whose defense is not its coherence, but its ability to glibly present the message as the medium and the medium as the message depending on which approach better suits the needs of apologists in the moment.

[Paddy]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1401491' date='Jun 17 2008, 04.33']Tell me...do I match the stereotype?[/quote]
Honestly, when I was reading your posts yesterday and seeing all of the strawman arguments you were presenting, I was thinking "well, I guess I can see why he's a TG fan"
:P

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1401491' date='Jun 17 2008, 04.33']The writing is poor by some standards, but sufficient by other standards. Accepting "sufficient" writing, and getting past that (if necessary) to enjoy the story is possible, and doesn't require the readers/fans to have room-temperature IQs.[/quote]
Yeah, that's all that's required for enjoyment of the material, but it's a bit more difficult to explain why you're a self-professed fan and evangelist of the work, if you accept that the work is of a lower standards.
While I have never engaged in mockery of TG or his fans, all of the mockery I've seen by people on this board hasn't really been targeted at people who enjoy the work, but people who are fans of it, have it as their favourite books ever and evangelise them.
If someone honestly thinks that the work is bad, they're going to wonder about people who think it's the best thing ever.

[Kheldar]

[quote name='Het Vreemdeling' post='1401876' date='Jun 17 2008, 05.39']perhaps he is even saying that it is the product of a Disorganized Mind Filled With Invalid Concepts.[/quote]
Not really.

[quote name='Het Vreemdeling' post='1401876' date='Jun 17 2008, 05.39']on the utility of extremes in proving philosophy:

there is a long tradition of doing so quite successfully by some of the best thinkers in human history: Plato's Cave, Voltaire's Candide, Kafka's The Trial and Nietsche's Also Sprach Zarathustra come to mind.[/quote]
Yep.

[quote name='Het Vreemdeling' post='1401876' date='Jun 17 2008, 05.39']The glaring difference between these and [b]Tairy[/b]'s omni-screed is the fact that the former are explicitly read for their philosophical value;[/quote]
Infantile.

As to the point of your statement, you're right. The average person doesn't pick up Plato for casual reading. TG wanted to write a book (or a series of books) that included the basics of his philosophy, but put them in an easy to read format that the average person might want to read. Stealth philosophy, in a sense...although it's gotten to be much less stealthy in the later books, to the point of being like drinking a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster (having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick).

[quote name='Het Vreemdeling' post='1401876' date='Jun 17 2008, 05.39']very few people are reading feverishly from page to page of Zarathustra intent on knowing whether or not he dies in the end. There is an intellectual honesty to this kind of philosophical representation that I don't see evident in the mentality of SOT readers;[/quote]
Is there a "proper" way to represent a philosophy, and deviation from that way is intellectually dishonest?

[quote name='Het Vreemdeling' post='1401876' date='Jun 17 2008, 05.39']they try to defend philosophical ideals within the logic of a story which as Kheldar has already mentioned is *snicker snicker* set in a world containing magic.[/quote]
Do you have a sense of humor? It was not an argumentative dismissal of the point, merely pointing out that a fictional world containing magic has a default amount of "lack of realism", stated in a way meant to be humorous.

[quote name='Het Vreemdeling' post='1401876' date='Jun 17 2008, 05.39']As such there is a tactical attempt to have it both ways: the story is used as a vector for Important Human Themes but the logical coherency of the themes is also defensible via the suspension of disbelief required for the reading of a fantasy novel.[/quote]
Suspension of disbelief is required only for accepting certain things. A scenario can involved suspension of disbelief and still be a vector for "Important Human Themes", and the logical coherency can still exist. I mentioned Aesop earlier for just such a reason. Fables impart morality, but require suspension of disbelief. Does it matter that an ant and a grasshopper can't really carry on a conversation ("that they just wouldn't act that way")?

[quote name='Het Vreemdeling' post='1401876' date='Jun 17 2008, 05.39']Ergo we end up with situations where little girls are kicked into a coma and the following exegesis becomes possible: the act might not be defensible in terms of human morality but one must consider Richard's frame of mind but at the same time this is an important exploration of human reaction to torture which cannot be read literally.[/quote]
You won't find me defending that action.

[quote name='Het Vreemdeling' post='1401876' date='Jun 17 2008, 05.39']I'm more or less paid to be a professional reader, so I approach every book with a strategy, because as previously mentioned there is no such thing as an editorially neutral book. I know how to approach a philosophical work, I know how I need to approach an academic treatise, and I know how to read a fantasy work (which is 'with dread' when it comes to a certain author). I do not know how to read Tairy, however, and it has nothing to do with the depth of themes--I've read half the Buddhist and Hindu canons, so don't try to sell me on that one.[/quote]
Try reading Goodkind's books as mere books, and ignore what he says his intents are. For example, should you find yourself in a situation where you must read his next book (whatever it may be...hopefully it'll be a fresh start with completely different characters), do so with a blank slate. Try it as if you didn't know the author (like when King released books under the pseudonym Richard Bachman).

Don't read the books for what the author says is in there...read them and evaluate them independent of what the author says.

[quote name='Het Vreemdeling' post='1401876' date='Jun 17 2008, 05.39']Instead, it is because Tairy is duplicitous in the representation of his works--he has taken his authorial license as a fantasy author (a profession he will not publicly admit to having) as an aegis behind which to construct an unassailable philosophical edifice whose defense is not its coherence, but its ability to glibly present the message as the medium and the medium as the message depending on which approach better suits the needs of apologists in the moment.[/quote]
I'm not an Objectivist, and I won't be defending it or methodologies used by Objectivist proponents. Personally, I find most Objectivists to have an overinflated ego. I accept that, tolerate that, and account for that when dealing with them.

But you've touched on a point that bears further examination. TG views himself as an Objectivist who writes novels that happen to be set in a fantasy world. I view TG as a fantasy author who happens to be an Objectivist. What he says about other fantasy novels, any egotism that he expresses...none of it matters to me, any more than Tim Robbins' extreme liberal views (I'm pretty conservative, politically) prevent me from enjoying his movies (IQ and Shawshank Redemption are both among my favorite movies).

The sun doesn't rise and set on Terry...not for me. I enjoy his books, I admire his enthusiasm, I respect his views on many issues, but he is not the Second Coming.

[Paddy]

swordfish, is that you?

[Kheldar]

[quote name='Paddiano Ronaldo' post='1401896' date='Jun 17 2008, 05.58']Honestly, when I was reading your posts yesterday and seeing all of the strawman arguments you were presenting, I was thinking "well, I guess I can see why he's a TG fan"
:P[/quote]
What strawman arguments? Where was I creating a misrepresentation of anyone's position in order to more easily refute it?

[quote name='Paddiano Ronaldo' post='1401896' date='Jun 17 2008, 05.58']Yeah, that's all that's required for enjoyment of the material, but it's a bit more difficult to explain why you're a self-professed fan and evangelist of the work, if you accept that the work is of a lower standards.[/quote]
Facets of the work may be of a lower standard than other books I've read, but those facets aren't enough to ruin the books for me. I can see past them.

[quote name='Paddiano Ronaldo' post='1401896' date='Jun 17 2008, 05.58']While I have never engaged in mockery of TG or his fans, all of the mockery I've seen by people on this board hasn't really been targeted at people who enjoy the work, but people who are fans of it, have it as their favourite books ever and evangelise them.[/quote]
Are you familiar with the mock-board [i]Goodkind is our God[/i]? It was not mockery of TG, it was mockery of the fans. While I don't consider myself an extreme fan, I did consider it a mockery of me as well as my friends.

While I can understand rolling-of-eyes at anyone who is over-excited about a life-changing experience (they get all gushy-like), it speaks poorly on those who participate in and perpetuate mockery of such people...and those who enjoy such humor.

[quote name='Paddiano Ronaldo' post='1401896' date='Jun 17 2008, 05.58']If someone honestly thinks that the work is bad, they're going to wonder about people who think it's the best thing ever.[/quote]
Why? I honestly think that mushrooms are disgusting, but it doesn't make me wonder about people who love them. I honestly can't stand country line dancing, but it doesn't make me wonder about people who enjoy it. I just write it off as "different tastes" and let it go.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1401923' date='Jun 17 2008, 07.38']it speaks poorly on those who participate in and perpetuate mockery of such people...and those who enjoy such humor.[/quote]

[mod] This, my friends, is where the line is drawn. Addicted came here in good faith, to start a conversation [i]about the books[/i]. Comments like these undermine that good faith, and if that happens I will close this thread. The choice is yours. [/mod]

[RWHamel]

Don't you ever sleep X-ray? ;)