TheKassi Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Apparently you have some unique ability to look into the minds of other people and see what they truly believe. As if they were characters in a book. That's rather objectifying and dehumanizing. He has the ability to research the statements the individual has made over the years and formulate an opinion about them. It would be rather fair to argue that some of what he said was an exaggeration, and all of it lacked tact, but none of it was assumption. Goodkind has given a lot of interviews, and gone into a lot of detail about what he thinks. In addition he has openly stated that the main character in his books is a personification of himself, and used to express his view on the important stuff. There is also the fact that He has stated his philosophical alignment with Ayn Rand several times, and Ayn Rand wrote thousands upon thousands of pages on her views. In point of fact, I would argue that his observations on Goodkind are much better researched then your observations on the Lord of Lemmings, if for no other reason then the disproportionate amount of data available about the thoughts of both individuals. Finally, how do you know what Myshkin truly believes if you didn't take a look at what he has written and made your own assessment, the way he has with Goodkind over several years? By your own statements, would you not require a similar ability to look into the minds of others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migey Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 @ LeBæuf.That argument is a little silly. If someone reguarly expresses thier views, and show what they believe through thier actions and words, one can generally take for granted that is what they beleive in. And if it isn't truly what they beleive in, what does it matter? If Goodkind is really a nice, friendly, open minded soul, for as long as he pretends to the contrary, that is what he should be treated as - something is not what it IS, but what is shown. After all, if i say i am a vegetarian, refuse to eat meat and fish, claim that i beleive it is wrong, then, even if truly i actually beleive there is no problem in eating meat, that is irrelevant as long as i pretend otherwise. Also, i don't think many people here really hate Goodkind. I don't, and while some might, most people on this board are rational beings, and won't waste effort hating him. He is simply so mockable - we have so much fun mocking him together. He opens himself up to mockery by what he writes and what he says about it. As said, there are worse authors, but those authors are simply BAD authors... not assholey ones, and not so easily tauntable. It is much harder to mock someone with no skills as a writer and who lacks the ability to form a coherent plot, character, sentence, etc, then it is to mock someone with pretty awful prose and who includes such things as evil, demented chickens, jaw kicks of doom, leather clad dominatrix BDSM fetishists (who just had a tough childhood really :frown5: ), and who includes page long rants and strawman arguments to prove he is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grack21 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Mystar has no professional connection to Goodkind, he is just the most rabid and outspoken of Goodkind's fanboys. For his fanaticism Goodkind occasionally throws him a bone (ha, not double entendre intended, but I'll leave it in cause it's awesome). That's actually kind of relieving to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demosthenes Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Apparently you have some unique ability to look into the minds of other people and see what they truly believe.Hm... Just because you (presumably) can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grack21 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I thought Goodkind was supposed to be funny for a long time. It's when you find out he means it is when it starts to get scary. Also, fucking goats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Goats are noble animals, Costa says so.(Not sure I got the name right). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Being a bad writer in itself is no reason to hate the man.And you'll see that I never said it was. If you read my summation you'd know that I said it was a combination of his poor writing, his horrible philosophy, and his enormous arrogance which led us to mock him so viciously. Dan Brown is a piss poor writer, but he doesn't get mocked like Goodkind because he doesn't fit the other criteria. Orson Scott Card is a crazy dick with some really monstrous views, but he doesn't get the Goodkind level of mocking because he can actually write. Does that clear that up for you?Also, there's a lot of "because he believes himself to..." Apparently you have some unique ability to look into the minds of other people and see what they truly believe. As if they were characters in a book. I don't consider drawing conclusions from a large body of research material a "unique ability". Do you? Really? I hope not.That's rather objectifying and dehumanizing.You've apparently missed the entire theme of these threads. Let me clue you in: we are here to make fun of Terry Goodkind. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. This is inherently objectifying, and quite often dehumanizing. That's why we do it.Goats are noble animals, Costa says so.(Not sure I got the name right).Abercrombie claims that this was not a dig at Goodkind, but we all know the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Haha. Because noble goat is such a common combo of words in our language. Riiight.One more reason to love Abercrombie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grack21 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 And you'll see that I never said it was. If you read my summation you'd know that I said it was a combination of his poor writing, his horrible philosophy, and his enormous arrogance which led us to mock him so viciously. Dan Brown is a piss poor writer, but he doesn't get mocked like Goodkind because he doesn't fit the other criteria. Orson Scott Card is a crazy dick with some really monstrous views, but he doesn't get the Goodkind level of mocking because he can actually write. Does that clear that up for you? I would disagree with this. 100 percent. With a sign. OSC coundn't write himself out of a nutsack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I would disagree with this. 100 percent. With a sign. OSC coundn't write himself out of a nutsack.How the hell did he get in a nutsack anyway? And are the a particulary hard sack to break out of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grack21 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 How the hell did he get in a nutsack anyway? And are the a particulary hard sack to break out of? They hold your nuts. If you're male. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I would disagree with this. 100 percent. With a sign. OSC coundn't write himself out of a nutsack.Some of his later stuff is crap, but Ender's Game is a masterpiece. But I respect your right to your obviously erroneous opinion.How the hell did he get in a nutsack anyway? And are the a particulary hard sack to break out of?Buddhist extremists put him there. And they are extremely hard to break out of when you are religiously forbidden to touch a nutsack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Spoon Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Totally random thought: if someone told me there was a creature called a namble, I'd expect it to look like a fat labrador and be stupid but friendly, possibly with dribble. Similarly, I'd expect a gar to be a type of fish. Don't know why though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grack21 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Some of his later stuff is crap, but Ender's Game is a masterpiece. But I respect your right to your obviously erroneous opinion. I guess if you're into genocide and have a giant statue of Hitler, sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Totally random thought: if someone told me there was a creature called a namble, I'd expect it to look like a fat labrador and be stupid but friendly, possibly with dribble. Similarly, I'd expect a gar to be a type of fish. Don't know why though.Would you expect either of them to have a giant barbed cock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I guess if you're into genocide and have a giant statue of Hitler, sure.I said he was a crazy dick with monstrous views, but he sure can write. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Spoon Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 No. But then, I wouldn't expect any creature to be packing one of those. Except perhaps Pinhead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 No. But then, I wouldn't expect any creature to be packing one of those. Except perhaps Pinhead.+1 to Goodkind for the ability to surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grack21 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I said he was a crazy dick with monstrous views, but he sure can write. Touche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Spoon Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 There are good surprises and bad surprises! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.