Jump to content

Goodkind XLVIII


Gabriele

Recommended Posts

Oh btw, just with some off my head calculations, and since im not exactly sure how many posts in a thread until locked, (in between 20 and 25 pages?) i deduced that there have been something like 22,000 posts on Yeardy goodness. Or somewhere around that.

Goodkind should be proud. Not many can boast to having over twenty-thousand posts dedicated to mocking him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poundland doesn't have a philosophy section.

Although i think they've stated they are planning to make one, just for Goodkind, and his important human themes. God praise the yeard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'll have a whole shelf of him. Because with Tairy, what other philosophy could you need?

None, obviously. Who but the holy yeard can so skillfully, delicately, and deftly manipulate and explore such deep philosophical topics such as the morality of kicking of 8 year olds in the jaw?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH NO, I'm actually going to defend the Yeard for one thing he is consistently criticized for. I cant believe it, but this has always driven me nuts.

-Kicking a girl in the jaw--

Can we please put the first book in its own context. We didn't not know, as we did in later books, that Richard was supposed to be the most devout hero of always being right that he became. Assuming he was a man, and assuming he was a man being tortured, and assuming he was somewhat less sane because of so, the kicking in the teeth didn't shock me on first reading like some claim. When i thought i as reading about a flawed hero, the act seemed to fit the context. Once we know that Richard is supposed to be the standard bearer, yes the act seemed even more extreme. But that didn't come out of the first book.

After all, we forget that Ser Gregor smashed Pella's face(and teeth) in AFFC. (Correct me if i have wrong character name, I've only read AFFC twice, and im horrible with names of minor characters). Is the act different because we know he is bad?

Of course in the same book a man actually succeeded in banning fire, so resume all criticisms from there. I cant defend the yeard for anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After all, we forget that Ser Gregor smashed Pella's face(and teeth) in AFFC. (Correct me if i have wrong character name, I've only read AFFC twice, and im horrible with names of minor characters). Is the act different because we know he is bad?

What do you mean? Ser Gregor is a flat-out villain, easily one of the most unrelentingly evil characters in the series. He's not a POV character and there is no attempt to consider him sympathetic or likable. If we forget one or two of his atrocious crimes it's only because every single scene of his is chockful of unspeakable enormities and assorted crimes against humanity. I think it's perfectly reasonable to hold Richard Rahl -- a purported hero -- to a higher standard than a mass-murdering genocidal serial rapist Gregor Clegane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Ned had kicked Joffrey's face in then you might have had a point. But kudos on being the first person to ever use "But Gregor Clegane did it too!" as a defence of Richard's character. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh btw, just with some off my head calculations, and since im not exactly sure how many posts in a thread until locked, (in between 20 and 25 pages?) i deduced that there have been something like 22,000 posts on Yeardy goodness. Or somewhere around that.

The mods are pretty good about closing threads at 400 posts or shortly thereafter so I think you'll find we are only about 19,000 posts. Still pretty damn impressive work and all Lemmings of Discord should be rightly proud of their good work :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the jaw kicking was a good scene in the first book. The brat certainly was asking for it. It was interesting to read about a "hero" that would do these kinds of things. Earlier in the mud people place when Darken Rahl shows up, Richard is told to stay inside and let Mud People die because the quest is too important. Most goody goody heroes would go outside and get themselves captured. I figured Richard was just a pragmatist who knew what he needed to do, no matter the cost.

The series reads a lot better when you see Richard and friends as a band of villains who believe they're doing what's right. Which is exactly what Zedd says in the first book. Villains don't see their own acts as evil. Goodkind was off to a decent start there, but couldn't follow through. But maybe Zedd was foreshadowing Richard's own future. Because of the fixed third-person view points, we're only seeing things/thoughts from the heroes mostly. I just wish there was some kind of sequence where a villain showed Richard what he'd become, and have an awesome moment of realisation. But the objectivist crap puts a stop to that.

The series could have pulled off a really awesome finish if it had gone in that direction, rather than the Richard is always right direction. Except when Richard was wrong sometimes because it extended the drama a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm reading the first book. My God... it's dull. It's not even entertainingly bad, it's just dull. I'd like to think this is in no way my biased view of Goodkind and his little Ayn Rand-ian political subtexts. Richard is an uninteresting protagonist, Khalan's a bit of a bitch, the only likeable character is Zedd and right now, he's in a coma.

Richard's little 'anger makes him stronger' trick always seems to remind me of Ben Stiller's Mr. Furious in 'Mystery Men.' He needs a little calming squeaky toy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'l admit i mock the kicking the 8 year old in the jaw without really any idea of the context, but the concept is hilarious :P And i think from reading excerpts, quotes, and hearing about him, that Goodkind is past the point where we actually have to back it up when we mock him - even if the specific case of mockery is unjust, it doesn't matter - most of you can instantly, off the top of your head find about 5 other things he's said or written to mock.

Although still. No matter the context, kicking an 8 year old in the jaw? Harsh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The series could have pulled off a really awesome finish if it had gone in that direction, rather than the Richard is always right direction. Except when Richard was wrong sometimes because it extended the drama a bit.

Aaaah, its a thin line between brilliant and utter crap. Badwrite is firmly in the shit shoveling business. We speculated what brilliant (a bit bad written) series it would be if in the end Richard would pull of some sort 'The Wave' sequence and reveal that Dhara is the second coming of the 3rd Reich and all his fans were Nazi sympathizers, but alas.

Dick/Yeardkind truly believes he's right and if you dont believe it, then your grandmother has never been raped and as a death chooser you should die by righteous torture and testicle munch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean? Ser Gregor is a flat-out villain, easily one of the most unrelentingly evil characters in the series. He's not a POV character and there is no attempt to consider him sympathetic or likable. If we forget one or two of his atrocious crimes it's only because every single scene of his is chockful of unspeakable enormities and assorted crimes against humanity. I think it's perfectly reasonable to hold Richard Rahl -- a purported hero -- to a higher standard than a mass-murdering genocidal serial rapist Gregor Clegane.

I get it, my point was only that in the context of the first book alone, and not knowing anything about the yeard and what he became, many of us thought we were reading about a flawed hero. We had know idea that Richard was soon going to be held up to a standard for all of us to look up too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it, my point was only that in the context of the first book alone, and not knowing anything about the yeard and what he became, many of us thought we were reading about a flawed hero. We had know idea that Richard was soon going to be held up to a standard for all of us to look up too.

Well, that's a fair point. I just think that there's an upper bound of what kind of flaws a hero may have before they stop being heroes and shift into "villain" territory, and Richard Rahl scratched that ceiling when he mutilated a little girl. And, no, I don't think "she was asking for it" is a good defense either. I'm sure pretty Pia's voice was very annoying but I don't think that Gregor was morally justified in smashing her face in, even if he did have a migraine.

but why? they're more or less the same. tairy's books are essentially a 10-volume gregor POV.

That's true, but my point was that Gregor Clegane was intended to be a villain. Martin never even implied that a reader should see him as a person to be emulated, either by people in real life or even by the society of Westeros. Richard Rahl is the opposite of that; he's supposed to be your Howard Roark, the ideal Objectivist man. Even before that became the forefront of the story, the book makes a big deal about Richard's nobility coming from his simple woods guide heritage and his tutelage under Zedd. I feel justified in expecting better of him as a character; he doesn't have to be the heroic cliche stereotype, and he might even do something awful, but the book shouldn't try to hold him up as a perfect hero right after that. I'm not obligated to pretend as if the series stopped with the first book either.

EDIT: Although I really, really wish it had, of course! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...