Goodkind XLVII

[Grogsmash]

No, it's really not; we're nowhere near that slippery slope just yet. Is it really so outrageous to suggest that people's attitudes are influenced by what they read, especially in cases like Goodkind who freely admits that he deliberately intends to propogate his "philosophy" via his books?

I think most people would agree that reading something does change our attitudes. However, how does it change us and by how much? Also, is the message that the author is trying to get across really what we get out of it?

Take Goodkind. He imagines his work as some great treatise on philosophy. However, of my one friend who did like his books, he certainly is no objectivist. He just has poor taste. In fact, if it wasn't for Goodkind telling people what he wants readers to get out of it, I would have no idea that he was an objectivist. All I got out of his series was that he was a plagiarist. So while I agree that SoT is a horrible series, I find it highly questionable that it is corrupting anyone towards any philosophy.

To pick on Pinwheel here, he says that Twilight teaches girls to hate other girls. That is clearly his own interpretation of the book. Stephanie Meyer has never said that she is trying to teach girls that. I know of no fan of the series who advocates that the book teaches that. When I see pictures of Twilight movie girls hanging all over each other gushing over being on Team Edward or Team Jacob, I don't get any vibe that they hate each other. If I were to get any philosophy out of the series, it would be that love can transcend physical boundaries. Though really, it is hardly that deep and so I take it for what it is, a fluffy light paranormal romance with some characters that I like.

Let me again try another example. Richard Morgan's Kovacs trilogy and some of his other sci fi like Market Forces basically revolve around an ex-mercenary going around being a vigilante against evil corporations. I find this plot device boring and simplistic. I am not sure if he himself believes that corporations are all evil, if so I find that distasteful as a political view. Yet I don't think it is going to corrupt people into thinking they should go around trying to kill corporate executives. In the end it is just a story.

[Myshkin]

I think most people would agree that reading something does change our attitudes. However, how does it change us and by how much? Also, is the message that the author is trying to get across really what we get out of it?

Take Goodkind. He imagines his work as some great treatise on philosophy. However, of my one friend who did like his books, he certainly is no objectivist. He just has poor taste. In fact, if it wasn't for Goodkind telling people what he wants readers to get out of it, I would have no idea that he was an objectivist. All I got out of his series was that he was a plagiarist. So while I agree that SoT is a horrible series, I find it highly questionable that it is corrupting anyone towards any philosophy.

No one is saying that everyone who reads SoT is going to be affected by Goodkind's philosophy. What we are saying is that it will affect (infect?) a small portion or his more die-hard fans. For proof of this all you need to do is check out some of the things said on message boards dedicated to SoT.

[TheKassi]

No, it's really not; we're nowhere near that slippery slope just yet. Is it really so outrageous to suggest that people's attitudes are influenced by what they read, especially in cases like Goodkind who freely admits that he deliberately intends to propogate his "philosophy" via his books?

First: Just about every work of fantasy with any depth at all propagates the writer's philosophy. That fact is one of the reasons why Mister Goodkind's claim that “He is a novelist, not a fantasy writer” is so outrageous.

Second, yes it is outrageous to claim that people's attitudes on anything important are influenced by fantasy. I would love to live in a world where reading about the heroic actions of others would give people the courage to stand up to the petty bullies and perpetrators of their own stresses. That just isn't the case.

As for Goodkind's work specifically, as the only confirmed yeardite ever to be offered a position among the lemmings of discord, and the gal with the most experience debating yeardites on their home turf, I can tell you that there are no real Objectivist converts among Goodkind's fan base. Most of them simply choose to flat out ignore the parts of Goodkind's work that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions (I.E the Jesus was an Objectivist thread) and only acknowledge the stuff they already agreed with. (I.E Handouts are bad)

At the end of the day, the most rabid Goodkind fans (Even Zedd and My*) are staunch collectivists. Goodkind philosophy has little to no impact on it's fan base. Heck, Zedd is a government employee. Even the founder of Reason's Light (The group who started a 'philosophy' 'based on' SoT) was a big giant collectivist. Heck even Dudz called Health Care a human right.

This is also true for Randriods. They are far more heavily influenced by Rand's non-fiction then The Fountainhead or AS.

[sologdin]

mieville's position on this issue is dispositive:

When I write a novel I do it to tell a story and describe a world that keeps readers interested in turning pages. My job in that book is not to convince people of socialism--a 700-page fantasy would be a spectacularly inefficient mode of propaganda. But obviously as a political writer of fiction it's inevitable that I'm a writer of political fiction.

I certainly try to engage with political ideas in my books. By doing so in fantasy, which has such a conservative tradition, you're engaging both with politics in general and with the politics of the genre you write in. There's politics in my books because it gives the worlds texture for me, and because I like investigating the ideas. If people do take away some of the politics then that's great, but I think I'd be setting myself up for serious disappointment as a socialist if that was my first aim with the novels. I don't think there's any replacement for traditional political activity and argument for pushing forward socialist politics.

I love weird fiction, ghost stories, horror comics and SF passionately, but they're not going to change the world. That's why I'm a novelist and an active revolutionary socialist.

[MattL86]

Take Goodkind. He imagines his work as some great treatise on philosophy. However, of my one friend who did like his books, he certainly is no objectivist. He just has poor taste. In fact, if it wasn't for Goodkind telling people what he wants readers to get out of it, I would have no idea that he was an objectivist. All I got out of his series was that he was a plagiarist. So while I agree that SoT is a horrible series, I find it highly questionable that it is corrupting anyone towards any philosophy.

That's...just not true. I've seen those message boards, and there are discussions about living your life by the Wizard Rules (which are all progressively more and more objectivist mantra). People made posts like, |which one do you most often use in real life?" etc. Now I'm not saying that I really give a crap if TG influences people, but it is fairly obvious he does. The exreme lengths his fans go to defending every word of his books sometimes borders on cultic.

I've read the entire SoT series, and my own personal experience was like this:

Books 1-4: Liked them to some extent, was seriously wierded out by some sections, but I was new ro fantasy and kind of liked it.

Book 5: Okaaayyyy....So he hates Bill Clinton. Kinda a wierd plotline for a fantasy book, but I'm not a Clinton fan so I find it more humorous than repulsive. The objectivist mantra really starts to be defined more clearly. Started to be a little uncomfortable.

Book 6: WTF? This book is a textbook on objectivism, with some inexplicably bad sex scenes, and naked battles in the snow, and other crap. At this point, I gave up on the books, and I'm reading the rest for laughs and to finish the series.

Books 7-11: These books are such hardcore objectivism, they rarely read like a story even. If you are still reading seriously, you've bought objectivism or you are denser than a wooden door.

A lot of yeardies name book 6 their favourite, cause that's when they really buy the philosophy he's selling. Honestly, I cannot imagine how shallow a person you would have to be to read the entire series and not come to some sort of definitive opinion on Objectivism. It's not like it is subtle. He practically caves your head in with it. I had never even heard the term, so I decided to look up Terry Goodkind on the internet to see if there was a name for this God awful philosophy. I never needed him to tell me what to look for; he'd been doing that for 11 books.

[A wilding]

Second, yes it is outrageous to claim that people's attitudes on anything important are influenced by fantasy. I would love to live in a world where reading about the heroic actions of others would give people the courage to stand up to the petty bullies and perpetrators of their own stresses. That just isn't the case.

Speaking generally, and not necessarily about Goodkind, I think there is a distinction between, on the one hand, a book inspiring you to difficult and potentially risky courses of action, and on the other hand, a book giving you justifications for your prejudices and weaknesses. I think the latter is far more likely. Other forms of media can have the same effect of course, and perhaps to a larger degree.

[TheKassi]

Speaking generally, and not necessarily about Goodkind, I think there is a distinction between, on the one hand, a book inspiring you to difficult and potentially risky courses of action, and on the other hand, a book giving you justifications for your prejudices and weaknesses. I think the latter is far more likely. Other forms of media can have the same effect of course, and perhaps to a larger degree.

Yeah there is a big difference between the two. One is real, measurable influence. The other is validation of a preconceived notion. There is a major difference between being informed/educated or even persuaded, and being validated. One helps people to formulate their own opinion, or even influences their intellectual evolution. The second congratulates a group for sharing similar beliefs by mocking dissenters.

The first is powerful, and can even be dangerous. The second is masturbatory.

Mocking Goodkind as a jerk who wrote pulp fiction one day and acted like he transcended genres even as he recreated them, forever changed to suit in his holy visage the next is one thing. Mocking Goodkind while actually giving him credit as an influential philosopher changing people's lives is tilting at straw men.

The first is funny, and can even be entertaining. The second...

At the end of the day, Goodkind just isn't that that league. He isn't even playing that sport. He writes escapist fantasy heavy on the kink. He is like Gor, only without the stones to go the full LKH.

[A wilding]

I agree that informing/educating people is powerful and possibly even dangerous; but I would still see it as a good thing. I personally want people to be educated, and think that the danger to established institutions that can result is fine. Even if people are persuaded of something by such an approach, I see the encouragement of critical thinking involved as negating any serious risk of anything approaching cultlike behaviour.

However validation of a preconceived notion is not just masturbatory. It can, for example, support some movement that pushes hatred towards some group, ultimately leading to some very dark places.

But I have no opinion as to whether Goodkind should be taken seriously as an example of this. You are very likely right in your assessment of him.

[Pinwheel]

To pick on Pinwheel here, he says that Twilight teaches girls to hate other girls. That is clearly his own interpretation of the book. Stephanie Meyer has never said that she is trying to teach girls that. I know of no fan of the series who advocates that the book teaches that. When I see pictures of Twilight movie girls hanging all over each other gushing over being on Team Edward or Team Jacob, I don't get any vibe that they hate each other. If I were to get any philosophy out of the series, it would be that love can transcend physical boundaries. Though really, it is hardly that deep and so I take it for what it is, a fluffy light paranormal romance with some characters that I like.

I know this is off-topic, but since I'm the one who brought it up, I figured I should explain how Twilight encourages girls to hate each other. Of course SM doesn't say she is trying to teach people that. No author tries to show their personal issues and prejudices through their writing. It just happens.

In the books, Stephenie Bella thinks all of the other girls at her high school are fake, boring, stupid, and annoying. She gives a half-assed attempt to form friendships with them, all the while thinking they suck. Edward, who can read their minds, confirms her attitude by telling her that all of the other girls -- especially the pretty, popular ones -- are vapid and beneath his interest. He has contempt for her few friends, telling her that she is much prettier and more interesting than they are.*

We're not just told over and over how special Bella is -- we're told how dull and worthless all the other girls are (except for Alice, the Manic Pixie Dream Sycophant, who exists just to shower Bella with praise and presents).

What teenage girl has not known girls who think like this? (I'm a woman, by the way.) Those girls are so insecure that they have to tear other girls down in order to feel better about themselves, even if they, like Bella, don't have the nerve to say it out loud and instead resort to being passive-aggressive.

For a teenage girl, the need to feel special is enormous, and the nastier ones (like Stephenie Meyer, clearly) fill this need by seeing everyone else as pathetic. That's how Twilight teaches girls to hate other girls -- the books say, "Not only are you super special and wonderful, but those other girls don't deserve the attention they get and they're nothing next to you."

I just think it's a huge problem with girls and how we see each other, and it matters a lot to me. An unfair myth about feminists is that we blame our problems on men, but I've always thought that women are our own worst frenemies. We need to recognize and confront crappy attitudes like Bella Swan's. To paraphrase Tina Fey in Mean Girls (one of the most underrated movies ever),"You all have got to stop calling each other worthless and ugly. It just makes it ok for guys to call you worthless and ugly." And Lindsay Lohan in the same movie: "Calling somebody else fat won't make you any skinnier. Calling someone stupid doesn't make you any smarter."

sigh. I just want to go to Twilight conventions and hand out care packages of books by Judy Blume.

* Seriously? If my boyfriend told me my friends were stupid and boring, I wouldn't feel loved and special; I would tell him he was a douchebag and go home. But then, you had to have noticed that Bella is a shitty friend.

[Foreverlad]

As for Goodkind's work specifically, as the only confirmed yeardite ever to be offered a position among the lemmings of discord, and the gal with the most experience debating yeardites on their home turf, I can tell you that there are no real Objectivist converts among Goodkind's fan base. Most of them simply choose to flat out ignore the parts of Goodkind's work that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions (I.E the Jesus was an Objectivist thread) and only acknowledge the stuff they already agreed with. (I.E Handouts are bad)

At the end of the day, the most rabid Goodkind fans (Even Zedd and My*) are staunch collectivists. Goodkind philosophy has little to no impact on it's fan base. Heck, Zedd is a government employee. Even the founder of Reason's Light (The group who started a 'philosophy' 'based on' SoT) was a big giant collectivist. Heck even Dudz called Health Care a human right.

This is also true for Randriods. They are far more heavily influenced by Rand's non-fiction then The Fountainhead or AS.

I agree.

As someone with far too much SoT experience, I'll openly admit that Faith of the Fallen (aka Statue-gate) was my favorite book in the series. Why? Because I liked the message If life sucks, do something about it. I liked the idea that art can inspire, that no matter your lot in life, you can do something about it. That doesn't mean I didn't find other aspects of the book (and of course, the series, and the author, and the...well, you get the idea) ridiculous. I don't find it hard to imagine fans of the series feel the same way.

While I don't mean to generalize an entire group of people, I found most Yeardites who were attracted to the series preferred the simplicity of the books. While the books didn't generally tell you to be an Objectivist, they did lay out an easily understood message behind the 'fantasy'. To a lot of folk, it was like reading poetry and for the first time, actually understanding what the poem was really about: before that, it was just pretty words following some archaic form. That's not to say they're a bunch of uninformed morons, they just found themselves a literary Rosetta Stone and stick to it. That's why many of them don't read much other fantasy, it doesn't follow the kind of pattern they recognize.

Tairy did what any whore will do: Tell you how great you are, how much better you are than the others, just to collect your money. People like positive reinforcement; tell them they're smart for seeing "deeper meaning" and they believe they're smarter. The SoT series was a bargain! You get fantasy, great literature AND philosophy lessons! While people might learn of Objectivism from the books, the situations are so forced and strawmanned that equating its tenets to daily life just isn't worth their time. That's why Tairy talks about ridiculously dramatic world events to get his point across in interviews: it's the easiest way for him to make a point. The man can't talk about O-vism without Godwin's Lawing it.

When the debate is Yeards vs Lemmings, I don't see the Yeards defending Tairy for the sake of Objectivism, I think they do it to defend their preferences and positive reinforcements. Will they defend O-vism? Sure, but usually because it's an instrument of Tairy's, not because they suck Ayn Rand's dick. Anyway, I don't think Tairy's message is all that dangerous, all the armchair philosophy you'll find on the various SoT forums are more comparable to Bart Simpson than Scott Bakker.

When it comes to the real world, most of Tairy's message is thrown out the window. Yeah, big government is bad, but only when it's taking away YOUR rights. Someone else's? Oh well. The majority of Yeardites are religious or spiritual people. They work 9-to-5 jobs, pay taxes and care enough about what other people think to explain and detail their opinions on things. They're no Howard Roark.

So anyway, yeah... Goodkind sucks.

Edit: Kassi, none of this post was aimed at you. Only quoted you for reference, not as a target :P

[respectabull]

Pinwheel: you are not the only person alarmed at the messages being sent to young girls via twilight... I have heard this same good argument from many others. :)

As for everyone else, including Kassi and Foreverlad...... STOP THE INSANITY!!!! there is way to much logic going on right now in this thread. Can't we just get back to mocking the yeard? I mean lets not get our purposes confused here. I expect to laugh when I open this thread not think! JEESH!

[Draco the Lizard]

"A lot of yeardies name book 6 their favourite, cause that's when they really buy the philosophy he's selling."

Funny how the hardcore fans name that as their favourite. I'm like MattL86 in that I felt the first books were all right, if rather derivative of Jordan, but Faith of the Fallen turned me off from Goodkind completely, as it was anvilicious in its anti-communist ways. I didn't connect it to Objectivism (I'm European and Ayn Rand isn't exactly known here) but I recognise blatant preaching and anti-communism/anti-socialism and the ridiculous plotpoint of causing a revolution by building a statue when I see it.

I think that Faith of the Fallen was, for me, the straw that broke the camel's back, and as I had already bought book 7, I read it as well, but gave up after that.

As for Twilight, the whole 'teenage girls hate other teenage girls' might also come from internalised misogyny on the writer's part. Mind, I've also read explanations from people who felt that there was some good in Bella's characterisation, because Bella is the one who makes the decisions around the house she and her dad share (something teenage girls would like) and because Bella doesn't have to hold back on her sexuality. She doesn't need to behave primly, she gets to jump Edward all she likes. Edward is the one holding her off, so that's something of a role-reversal in today's society where men are usually written as helpless horndogs while the women have to tell them 'no' when they go too far. Of course, there's a balance between a teenage girl not holding back on her sexuality and a teenage girl impersonating the likes of Paris Hilton and shagging her way through school, but there's some sort of silver lining amidst the more worrying subtext.

Also, when the hell did the Goodkind threads get so SRS BSNS :P.

[MadMardigan]

Disclaimer: I have not read Twilight....

I cannot believe I'm actually about to defend the Twilight series, but I really don't see it as a problem that teenage girls are given a heroine that sees herself as special and constantly has that idea reinforced by an immortal super being.... I don't think the message is so much to "hate your vapid peers" as it is to "be like Bella", be special, be someone worthy of an immortal's love. Ultimately I think the message is that no matter how lame or outcast or ugly you think you are, you can be someone special. And I don't really think that's such a bad message for a teen to take away from a book. Granted there may be other aspects of the books that are NOT so good, I haven't read them... but I do think that there is more than one way to look at the "Bella hates other girls" angle.

Back to the topic in general, i do think that a book can change your life, and can change the way you act and think. ESPECIALLY at a young age. When I was 15 I read The Gunslinger series and turned all broody and quiet (a la Roland).

If you want a very specific example of Goodkind damage, I can give you one I'm going through right now. My wife is interviewing for a new job. She tells her friend at her current job about the interview (friend is a Goodkind fan) and friend says "I should go put in my application!". This is a new job at an outside firm that the friend knew nothing of until my wife told her about her interview. So now, friend is interviewing for the same position, competing directly with my wife. If that doesn't smack of Goodkind/Rand BS, I don't know what does. And apparently "friend" sees nothing wrong with that.

[Mme Erzulie]

Entitlement issues is one of the biggest problem with youth (and people in general) today. Anything perpetuating the idea that *you* are special (and everyone else is common) (as opposed to *everyone* is special (in their own way)) is toxic and should be exposed as such. In short, Pinwheel is making a lot of sense to me.

[Stalker]

Entitlement issues is one of the biggest problem with youth (and people in general) today. Anything perpetuating the idea that *you* are special (and everyone else is common) (as opposed to *everyone* is special (in their own way)) is toxic and should be exposed as such. In short, Pinwheel is making a lot of sense to me.

The 'Suddenly really special, and everyone cares about me, but not through any effort on my part' fantasy is one of the most popular ones. Endemic to SF&F and common elsewhere too. This is one reason people have trouble accepting Jon's parentage. They don't want this cliche in Martin's books. If it makes sense, i expect a lack of surprise about it, and that the criticism is leveraged at all authors who does it.

[Alcibiades]

Well, now we have an idea of what Christmas is like in Tairy Land. This is number three on a list of top ten most unsuccessful holiday specials:

Ayn Rand’s A Selfish Christmas (1951)

In this hour-long radio drama, Santa struggles with the increasing demands of providing gifts for millions of spoiled, ungrateful brats across the world, until a single elf, in the engineering department of his workshop, convinces Santa to go on strike. The special ends with the entropic collapse of the civilization of takers and the spectacle of children trudging across the bitterly cold, dark tundra to offer Santa cash for his services, acknowledging at last that his genius makes the gifts — and therefore Christmas — possible. Prior to broadcast, Mutual Broadcast System executives raised objections to the radio play, noting that 56 minutes of the hour-long broadcast went to a philosophical manifesto by the elf and of the four remaining minutes, three went to a love scene between Santa and the cold, practical Mrs. Claus that was rendered into radio through the use of grunts and the shattering of several dozen whiskey tumblers. In later letters, Rand sneeringly described these executives as “anti-life.”

[The Pita]

I don't believe you. There is no way I will fucking believe you. I'm assuming that is a lie. An awesome one, but a lie.

[sologdin]

plainly satirical fiction. very good though. love the orson welles.

[Prince Who Was Promised]

Does anyone else find it...odd...that they have a lesbian make-out scene on a kid's show?

[sologdin]

not at all. barney, teletubbies, and so on are laden with psychosexual overtones; disney movies are full of it, including roguish insertions of pornographic images. it's par for the course.