Terry Goodkind Sucks (and steals from Robert Jordan)

[mr friendly guy]

Personally I find it funny that Bakustra is using the action to condemn Richard for which any half-educated attourney could get him off for temporary insanity.

Personally I find it funny that you feel the need to defend horrible novels, and find it even more funny that you can ignore what I'm saying so blatantly.

I'm not defending horrible novels douche. I challenge you to point out where.

You're wasting your time asking him to point out where, he will just restate the same claim again.

All I've done is tell you that if you want to condemn Richard based on his actions to not pick the one where he'd just been broken by torture. I was even generous enough to point out at least one event in the novels that does about a 1000% better job saying what you're trying to say.

But apparently anyone who disagrees with Bakustra must mean we love Goodkind's writing sooo much even if we wrote entire paragraphs saying where Goodkind's writing falls down. And yes Bakustra, if you challenge me, I can quote where you said something to that effect.

[Bakustra]

Mr. friendly guy, if you want to call someone an idiot, you should first check to see that you are using proper spelling, grammar, and syntax. As-is, your latest post is a massive headache to read and parse, but the way you knock the foundations out from your insults made it worth doing so. You also seem to be incapable of arguing without resorting to pureeing sentences. Is this defect congenital, or a more recent development?

Firstly, you seem to be unable to understand what I am saying. Let me make myself boldly, eye-hurtingly clear:

I reject your arguments about torture because they have no resemblance to reality. If you have a situation wherein you must torture somebody in order to stop a bomb from going off, then that is a situation in which torture is moral. But that scenario defines torture as necessary, and requires near-omniscience on behalf of the person making the decision. You could literally do the same for any moral dilemma- defining the traditionally wrong thing as necessary. This is only good for separating utilitarians from other ethical systems. Otherwise, it is of limited use. Your moral understanding is frankly limited if you think that this is the be-all, end-all of moral arguments.

There. So in this case, let us see whether the actions would logically follow that kicking the girl will bring an end to the torture, ensure freedom and life, and all that cool jazz. But first, let me say that you are lying when you say that Richard took conscious action to provoke his death. The passage shows that he did it as pure stimulus-response. This is not a heroic action for reasons I will get into later, but it disqualifies him as having any real motive, most importantly. This makes further discussion somewhat moot, but whatever, it's not like you won't ignore this paragraph anyhow.

In any case, the girl is not the only person who can torture him, and she does not have the sole authority to have his girlfriend tortured, and her death or severe harm is likely to bring his own death. So harming her is a stupid action, because she is not isolated and it will likely provoke an intensified response from an outraged, vengeful parent. Now, if your goal is to seek death, then it's still a stupid action because it's unlikely to provoke a quick death, nor will it protect your girlfriend either.

While it did lead to his escape, there was no logical reason why it should have. That is what I mean by contrived- there is no path from A to B, or imprisonment to escape, that makes sense without authorial intervention. The story is not organic at this point, because the author made it make no sense. If he had restricted himself to "Richard's powers come back", then that would be one thing, but he also has to incorporate nonsensical scenes that detract from his intentions.

A hero, in the current understanding, is an individual, or for a story the protagonist, of larger-than-life proportions in his or her moral character. That is to say, the hero generally does the right thing, faces clear consequences for doing the wrong thing, and so on. A hero resorting to horrific violence is something that generally makes an antihero without some contrived reasoning. Goodkind is dimly aware of this, but his contrivances fail to be convincing. Let me put it this way- a heroic character in the same situation would only take the kick if the girl was not a girl, but an ancient evil in human form, the evil was on the verge of murdering his or her beloved outright... in other words, a hero must have a highly contrived situation for the kick to still be heroic. Alternately, there could be other forms that I discussed earlier, but the point is that Goodkind fails to contrive the situation to be clear-cut enough for his hero to remain heroic.

The antihero, to contrast, is a protagonist who is merely mortal in his or her moral character. Antiheroes don't have clear moral paths. They make mistakes, they don't face clear consequences for doing wrong or right. Generally, an antihero must perform some immoral or morally questionable action to distinguish himself or herself from a hero. So an antihero would perform the kick, but our sympathies would not be with them and the act would not necessarily be portrayed as moral except in the mind of the antihero.

So the action cannot be heroic, because the contrivances fail to make the scene sensible, and it cannot be antiheroic, because it is presented as the moral course of action. It can't be unheroic for the same reason. That is why I say that it is built upon an alien logic, because it fails to make any sense and undermines any interpretation of the character.

Secondarily, the objections to torture in real life, which you appear to be unaware of, are that it provides a mass of information which is mostly false and generally what the victim thinks the tormentors want to hear, it creates a public-relations uproar and helps ensure that the forces you are fighting will avoid being taken alive at all, and it psychologically traumatizes the people that perform it. In real life, as opposed to contrived scenarios you believe to be profound, torture is ineffective, horrific, and therefore only used by the more vile governments of the world.

Thirdly, the scene is pointless because there's literally no reason to have him mutilate the kid and it harms any interpretation of him. If he were a hero, he would wait to make his escape. If he were an antihero of one stripe, he would wait to make his escape and take his violent revenge. If he were one of another, he would take the kick but it would not be a heroic action. The scene is extraneous to his reawakening of magic powers and actively harms any sort of interpretation of his character. It is pointless because it would have been better if it had never been put in.

[Gaidin]

Thirdly, the scene is pointless because there's literally no reason to have him mutilate the kid and it harms any interpretation of him. If he were a hero, he would wait to make his escape. If he were an antihero of one stripe, he would wait to make his escape and take his violent revenge. If he were one of another, he would take the kick but it would not be a heroic action. The scene is extraneous to his reawakening of magic powers and actively harms any sort of interpretation of his character. It is pointless because it would have been better if it had never been put in.

This just in: people don't behave in a reasonable fashion after they've been tortured.

[Eleas]

If I'm reading the argument ITT aright, some propose an insanity-based defense on the part of Richard - i.e. that he wasn't rational at the time, and that mind-based magic was involved, and that this means his response was in some way justifiable and/or mitigated.

Were this the argument, I might even have agreed... except (if one actually bothers to read the book) Goodkind doesn't in fact present it as random reaction, a torture prevention strategy, or whatever. The whole notion of the latter is ludicrous, since in that scene there are two torturers in the room, the other being a recognized master and enthusiast. No, to discover what Goodkind actually meant to convey, there are only three data that I find stand out.


Datum one: "Promise made. Promise kept." You see, Richard promised her. Well, not exactly promised promised.

"Be careful how you use that tongue," Richard sneered. "The next time I will separate it from you."

Also, incidentally, before the torture began, weakening the insanity clause. This is what his "thing" - excuse me, his magic - facilitates. Adherence to crucial oaths.


Datum two: The magic of the sword (and channelled by Richard) isn't exactly a secret.

"I have seen
a true Seeker make a king quake in his boots with the asking of a single question: When a real Seeker
draws the Sword of Truth . . ." He held his hands up and rolled his eyes in delight. "Righteous anger can
be an extraordinary thing to behold."

Righteous anger. Yes.


Datum number three. The fallout from Richard's action isn't even vaguely depicted as him being morally wrong. To the contrary, it's depicted in exactly the same manner as other scenes that have him show incredible and selfless strength, this time in the face of his own degradation.

Flicking through the book manifesto, it's difficult to reconcile his attack as having anything to do with desperation or weakness. This is presented as Richard doing what He Should Do. Richard's breaking free of his shackles, defying the oppression of his human spirit, and doing so through the power of Truth. The book glories in it.


That's what I get for actually reading the thing, I suppose. Tastes being a subjective matter, I can only give my own two cents. I'll accordingly observe that Goodkind's arguably greatest book is a less than pleasant read, in much the same way as we would consider a coma patient a "less than outgoing person."

[Gaidin]

Just to clarify, I agree with everything above. I'm not arguing with the writing or the depiction. There's two major arguments regarding the scene. First, Bakustra thinks its a pointless scene. Second, the idea that it presents the pure moral depravity of Richard.

The first is demonstrably wrong no matter how much he wants to argue that it's right. The entire point of the scene is that the other side of the Sword's magic is a way past the Mord-Sith's abilities. Richard needs a specific inspiration to get to that side of the magic at that point. It's instinctive for him there, and he can't consciously do it until a hundred or so pages into book 2. Threats against Kahlan were his trigger. The big kicker is that regardless of what dialogue he gives after he kicks her, it was a basically instinctive reaction to what she was doing and saying. His mind ain't all there at the moment of the action.

Second, based on the fact that it's an instinctive reaction to the threats and torture, that is the basis that any decent lawyer could get him off for temporary insanity. That is why picking this event to rant on the depravity of Richard is the height of debate incompetence. Once again, end of book 2, killing the Council of the Midlands Bakustra. Let me know when you remember the event or if you haven't read the book, just pick out that passage.

[Bakustra]

Just to clarify, I agree with everything above. I'm not arguing with the writing or the depiction. There's two major arguments regarding the scene. First, Bakustra thinks its a pointless scene. Second, the idea that it presents the pure moral depravity of Richard.

The first is demonstrably wrong no matter how much he wants to argue that it's right. The entire point of the scene is that the other side of the Sword's magic is a way past the Mord-Sith's abilities. Richard needs a specific inspiration to get to that side of the magic at that point. It's instinctive for him there, and he can't consciously do it until a hundred or so pages into book 2. Threats against Kahlan were his trigger. The big kicker is that regardless of what dialogue he gives after he kicks her, it was a basically instinctive reaction to what she was doing and saying. His mind ain't all there at the moment of the action.

Second, based on the fact that it's an instinctive reaction to the threats and torture, that is the basis that any decent lawyer could get him off for temporary insanity. That is why picking this event to rant on the depravity of Richard is the height of debate incompetence. Once again, end of book 2, killing the Council of the Midlands Bakustra. Let me know when you remember the event or if you haven't read the book, just pick out that passage.

The idea of irrational behavior falls under the unheroic action of an antihero. Goodkind presents it as a heroic action, though. This doesn't really refer to Richard's depravity, but rather Goodkind's incompetence and unfamiliarity with how literature works (and perhaps Goodkind himself is depraved, but there's probably better evidence out there).

[Pelranius]

Maybe Goodkind is troll who's laughing at his fans from his toilet made of laminated 100 bills?

That would explain his sudden flexibility in letting Legend of the Seeker prune out a lot of the content, which is otherwise astonishing when you consider the amount of Mary Stuing Richard gets in the books.

[Akhlut]

Maybe Goodkind is troll who's laughing at his fans from his toilet made of laminated 100 bills?

That would explain his sudden flexibility in letting Legend of the Seeker prune out a lot of the content, which is otherwise astonishing when you consider the amount of Mary Stuing Richard gets in the books.

Well, even in the context of a television series, you seriously have to cut some content somewhere to fit an 800 page leviathan, much less if you intend on getting later books in.

And to amend what I said earlier and didn't have a chance to reply to: while the tv series did cut out some/a lot of content, what it kept was fairly accurate to the books. At least, according to my brother, who has been reading them on and off for the past decade or so, so his memory might be faulty in that regard.

[Gaidin]

Just to clarify, I agree with everything above. I'm not arguing with the writing or the depiction. There's two major arguments regarding the scene. First, Bakustra thinks its a pointless scene. Second, the idea that it presents the pure moral depravity of Richard.

The first is demonstrably wrong no matter how much he wants to argue that it's right. The entire point of the scene is that the other side of the Sword's magic is a way past the Mord-Sith's abilities. Richard needs a specific inspiration to get to that side of the magic at that point. It's instinctive for him there, and he can't consciously do it until a hundred or so pages into book 2. Threats against Kahlan were his trigger. The big kicker is that regardless of what dialogue he gives after he kicks her, it was a basically instinctive reaction to what she was doing and saying. His mind ain't all there at the moment of the action.

Second, based on the fact that it's an instinctive reaction to the threats and torture, that is the basis that any decent lawyer could get him off for temporary insanity. That is why picking this event to rant on the depravity of Richard is the height of debate incompetence. Once again, end of book 2, killing the Council of the Midlands Bakustra. Let me know when you remember the event or if you haven't read the book, just pick out that passage.

The idea of irrational behavior falls under the unheroic action of an antihero. Goodkind presents it as a heroic action, though. This doesn't really refer to Richard's depravity, but rather Goodkind's incompetence and unfamiliarity with how literature works (and perhaps Goodkind himself is depraved, but there's probably better evidence out there).

Irrational behavior isn't limited to unheroic actions of an antihero. Any character is capable of irrational behavior given the right circumstances.

[Pelranius]

Maybe Goodkind is troll who's laughing at his fans from his toilet made of laminated 100 bills?

That would explain his sudden flexibility in letting Legend of the Seeker prune out a lot of the content, which is otherwise astonishing when you consider the amount of Mary Stuing Richard gets in the books.

Well, even in the context of a television series, you seriously have to cut some content somewhere to fit an 800 page leviathan, much less if you intend on getting later books in.

And to amend what I said earlier and didn't have a chance to reply to: while the tv series did cut out some/a lot of content, what it kept was fairly accurate to the books. At least, according to my brother, who has been reading them on and off for the past decade or so, so his memory might be faulty in that regard.

Did they/are they keeping in the statue crap? I stopped watching the series (mostly because I found other things to watch) and I haven't read the whole series.

[Eleas]

Irrational behavior isn't limited to unheroic actions of an antihero. Any character is capable of irrational behavior given the right circumstances.

...and as I clearly said, and you by your own words agreed with, these circumstances were not (which is fairly astonishing, in all honesty) either depicted or described as irrational. Quite the contrary: the book is unequivocal on Richard's magic being an expression of absolute Truth in action. There can hardly be a more ringing endorsement of rectitude in these books than that. The only token objection comes from Little Miss Torture-Kitten.

Richard had no idea how he was able to what he had done, why the magic hadn't stopped him, and from the look on Denna's face, he knew he shouldn't have been able to do it.

Yeah. Good question. Why didn't the magic stop him? I do wonder.



Edit: Once again, slight rewording.

[Gaidin]

...and as I clearly said, and you by your own words agreed with, these circumstances were not (which is fairly astonishing, in all honesty) either depicted or described as irrational. Quite the contrary: the book is unequivocal on Richard's magic being an expression of absolute Truth in action. There can hardly be a more ringing endorsement of rectitude in these books than that. The only token objection comes from Little Miss Torture-Kitten.

His power over the entire series is displayed as instinctive. Meaning, still, that rationality is not a necessity. Whatever Goodkind chooses to describe it as between right and wrong, rationality often need not play a role. It certainly doesn't here. The girl spent however much time torturing him, then she mocked him, then she threatened his friends. There's a reason there's a saying about straws breaking camels' backs. Which is why this scene is such a poor choice to use against Richard. Pick something from a later book where he consciously releases himself into his power and then levels a crowd or something. He does it to a whole damn army in book 7. He quite blatantly fulfills Bakustra's need for proving Richard's a sociopath when his friends attack him in book 6 and Richard lists them under 'enemy' without missing a beat and kills them with nothing to hurt his conscience. That's three other events now that I've listed that say what he's been trying to say a helluva lot better than the event he's making a pitiful attempt to use now. It's not that hard to do in this series.

[Bakustra]

...and as I clearly said, and you by your own words agreed with, these circumstances were not (which is fairly astonishing, in all honesty) either depicted or described as irrational. Quite the contrary: the book is unequivocal on Richard's magic being an expression of absolute Truth in action. There can hardly be a more ringing endorsement of rectitude in these books than that. The only token objection comes from Little Miss Torture-Kitten.

His power over the entire series is displayed as instinctive. Meaning, still, that rationality is not a necessity. Whatever Goodkind chooses to describe it as between right and wrong, rationality often need not play a role. It certainly doesn't here. The girl spent however much time torturing him, then she mocked him, then she threatened his friends. There's a reason there's a saying about straws breaking camels' backs. Which is why this scene is such a poor choice to use against Richard. Pick something from a later book where he consciously releases himself into his power and then levels a crowd or something. He does it to a whole damn army in book 7. He quite blatantly fulfills Bakustra's need for proving Richard's a sociopath when his friends attack him in book 6 and Richard lists them under 'enemy' without missing a beat and kills them with nothing to hurt his conscience. That's three other events now that I've listed that say what he's been trying to say a helluva lot better than the event he's making a pitiful attempt to use now. It's not that hard to do in this series.

Can you read what I'm writing? I'm saying that Goodkind is a terrible writer. That is the thrust of my argument. His characters being sociopathic is not really ancillary to that, unless they are only sociopathic because of his ineptitude.

EDIT: Corrected a metaphor.

[mr friendly guy]

snip

I will come up with a more detailed response later, although I have to say your responses have gotten a bit better. But I just want to point a few selected things out.

I reject your arguments about torture because they have no resemblance to reality. If you have a situation wherein you must torture somebody in order to stop a bomb from going off, then that is a situation in which torture is moral. But that scenario defines torture as necessary, and requires near-omniscience on behalf of the person making the decision. You could literally do the same for any moral dilemma- defining the traditionally wrong thing as necessary. This is only good for separating utilitarians from other ethical systems. Otherwise, it is of limited use. Your moral understanding is frankly limited if you think that this is the be-all, end-all of moral arguments.

Then the scenario is easy enough to rephrase without needing omniscience. Simply that you have exhausted all available non "wrong" options but I digress.

The argument about maiming to stop the bomb was initially postulated by you if you recall, not me, so you used an argument which has "no resemblance to reality". Is this forgetfulness the usual for you? I merely challenged you to follow through with that. In real life I wouldn't advocate torture because it doesn't work, however since you stated "it was the ONLY WAY" I did for the purpose to gauge your moral framework.

You talk about moral dilemna only good for separating utilitarians from other ethical systems, when I have earlier already stated the purpose of a moral dilemna was similar, ie to test your ethical system. Did you perhaps miss that part? So the million dollar question, what do you think I have been trying to do with the dilemna? Could it have been trying to gauge the moral framework with which you judge the situation? Nah it couldn't be.

Its laughable for you to say my understanding of it is limited, when I have used your own moral dilemna in the very way you say it should be utilised. Tell me do you suffer from the same type of learning disability Goodkind does?

As of now, anyone reading this would still be struggling to gauge the moral framework you use, its rules, premises etc. All I can think of is your gut feeling coupled with Goodkind sucks donkey balls.

There. So in this case, let us see whether the actions would logically follow that kicking the girl will bring an end to the torture, ensure freedom and life, and all that cool jazz. But first, let me say that you are lying when you say that Richard took conscious action to provoke his death.

I could have sworn I said the only conscious action he took was to try and prevent the torture and a need to protect Kahlan. I am pointing out that your statement about it making it worse, isn't necessary true because we know he wanted to die for various reasons already stated. Whether he is conscious of it when he made his decision is irrelevant to the point. I trust you can join the dots? Or maybe not. I would ask you to quote me on that, but you are just going to ignore that and repeat this claim ad nauseum again.

The passage shows that he did it as pure stimulus-response. This is not a heroic action for reasons I will get into later, but it disqualifies him as having any real motive, most importantly. This makes further discussion somewhat moot, but whatever, it's not like you won't ignore this paragraph anyhow.

Funny I don't really care whether he meets your criteria of a hero, which apparently a need to protect yourself isn't a motive. But whatever. I have already said I thought it was undesirable for his main character to be sprouting Ayn Rand crap in my opening paragraph.

However I do point out that it was silly to criticise him for defending himself which is a total separate consideration from whether he meets your definition of hero.

Now, if your goal is to seek death, then it's still a stupid action because it's unlikely to provoke a quick death, nor will it protect your girlfriend either.

Since you choose to ignore what happens (in the book) in favour of what I feel should happen I can to. I could simply say that the Queen's attention is diverted to Richard, giving Kahlan more time to head to where she was going. This is itself not an unreasonable assumption given the numerous times we hear in the media about <insert event here> will detract <insert government here> from doing <insert other task here>.

If you say its unlikely to provoke a quick death, its just reaching on your part, since some people do want to just get it over and done (executing enemies that is) and in the novel that is what Queen Mileena stated she wanted. So you are literally pulling shit up as it suits you. Funny thing is, thats the very thing you accuse Goodkind of.

While it did lead to his escape, there was no logical reason why it should have. That is what I mean by contrived- there is no path from A to B, or imprisonment to escape, that makes sense without authorial intervention. The story is not organic at this point, because the author made it make no sense. If he had restricted himself to "Richard's powers come back", then that would be one thing, but he also has to incorporate nonsensical scenes that detract from his intentions.

Now that I know what you mean, I can formulate a better response later. It only took, like what how many posts of asking?

A hero blah blah

Since I don't actually care whether he fits your definition of hero, in fact I have already said Richard as the protagonist has undesirable traits like preaching Ayn Rand crap, and since I was mainly interested in saying that its stupid to criticise Richard for defending himself and loved ones, what is the whole point of your hero rant? Except to throw in more Goodkind SUXS statements.

Secondarily, the objections to torture in real life, which you appear to be unaware of, are that it provides a mass of information which is mostly false and generally what the victim thinks the tormentors want to hear, it creates a public-relations uproar and helps ensure that the forces you are fighting will avoid being taken alive at all, and it psychologically traumatizes the people that perform it. In real life, as opposed to contrived scenarios you believe to be profound, torture is ineffective, horrific, and therefore only used by the more vile governments of the world.

If you see my post in some threads like the conservative talk show hosts water boards himself, you will know I oppose torture, having no wish to see him torture himself again just to see if he failed to hold his breath (because I was wondering why he didn't hold his breath given that he was only to be waterboard for a short time and I clearly didn't see it the first time round). So take your strawman and shove it. You were the one who used maiming was the ONLY WAY dilemna which I used purely to test your ethical framework, and I was up front about it having that purpose. I even applied my own ethical framework to the situation so you can't accuse me of not taking the challenge.

But you know what?
You are the guy who thinks a statement about the hero coming his magic = hero having an erection.
You are the guy who thinks defending yourself in self defense from an assailant = using the same force on criminals who are already locked up.
You are the guy who thinks saying its stupid to criticise Richard for defending himself = its stupid to criticise Richard for allegedly having a hard on in the presence of a child
Is it any wonder you think me using your own torture scenario as an ethical dilemna= me thinking torture works.

With this type of reading comprehension, Goodkind had no fucking chance but to be misintepreted. Its been a while since I read this book, but I don't recall ever having the impression that Richard was a paedophile.

I bet you if Goodkind was explaining quantitative easing to a bunch of kids and used the word stimulus, you would be jumping up and down and labelling him a paedophile, AM I RITE.

Thirdly, the scene is pointless because there's literally no reason to have him mutilate the kid and it harms any interpretation of him. If he were a hero, he would wait to make his escape. If he were an antihero of one stripe, he would wait to make his escape and take his violent revenge. If he were one of another, he would take the kick but it would not be a heroic action. The scene is extraneous to his reawakening of magic powers and actively harms any sort of interpretation of his character. It is pointless because it would have been better if it had never been put in.

I will touch on this later.

[mr friendly guy]

His power over the entire series is displayed as instinctive. Meaning, still, that rationality is not a necessity. Whatever Goodkind chooses to describe it as between right and wrong, rationality often need not play a role. It certainly doesn't here. The girl spent however much time torturing him, then she mocked him, then she threatened his friends. There's a reason there's a saying about straws breaking camels' backs. Which is why this scene is such a poor choice to use against Richard. Pick something from a later book where he consciously releases himself into his power and then levels a crowd or something. He does it to a whole damn army in book 7. He quite blatantly fulfills Bakustra's need for proving Richard's a sociopath when his friends attack him in book 6 and Richard lists them under 'enemy' without missing a beat and kills them with nothing to hurt his conscience. That's three other events now that I've listed that say what he's been trying to say a helluva lot better than the event he's making a pitiful attempt to use now. It's not that hard to do in this series.

Its quite funny. People have outright stated that Goodkind's writing has flaws, however its just stupid to use this particular scene as an example. But apparently we don't hate Goodkind as much as Bakustra does. The very fact that in replying to Stofsk about what happens, he edits out selected details which strangely makes Richard look worse is already quite telling and its quite frightening how Bakustra describes threats to rape and decapitate as merely "talking shit about someone." But its Terry Goodkind, so he is allowed to be bashed. Duh.

BTW what happened in book 7 with that army. I stopped reading at around book 6.

edit - I should add it vaguely flick through some of the later books in the book store to get some idea of whats been happening, but its obviously not as good as reading the whole thing.

[Bakustra]

It has been made clear to me that I poorly worded my initial posts, so I will say this: I do not accuse you, mr friendly guy, of supporting pedophilia. I also do not seriously consider the protagonist of the Sword of Truth a pedophile. I sincerely apologize if I have implied that. What I intended with my posts (and I did not make this clear) was to say that I considered the scene to be poorly written because it unintentionally implies Richard to have either pedophilic urges, snuff-fetishistic urges, or both. So I decided to bring that up as part of my arguments for the passage being poor of writing quality.

With that said, my response to mr friendly guy's latest post:

I'm afraid it's my turn to be befuddled now. You initially seemed to be saying that the writing was not terrible, but you show no interest in fully two-thirds of my arguments, and focus entirely on Richard's in-universe actions! Which is it that you wish to defend, the quality of the writing or the actions of Richard Rahl?

[Gaidin]

BTW what happened in book 7 with that army. I stopped reading at around book 6.

To give you the basic nutshell as I don't want to dig up the book...

Kahlan had been kidnapped by Sisters of the Dark(and one of Jagang's strategists was involved I think), and taken to a place of magical import called the Pillars of Creation. Richard followed, there was an army of at least a thousand in his way. He killed them without really missing a beat in the space of a few seconds.

[mr friendly guy]

I'm afraid it's my turn to be befuddled now. You initially seemed to be saying that the writing was not terrible, but you show no interest in fully two-thirds of my arguments, and focus entirely on Richard's in-universe actions! Which is it that you wish to defend, the quality of the writing or the actions of Richard Rahl?

Fair enough. I only wish to defend Goodkind's writing with regards to some aspects of this scene. I will first say that while the choice of words Goodkind used is not the best (I personally would use force for a synonym for magic rather than thing), that part didn't bother me because I suspected I got what Goodkind was saying when I read it. Nor do I care to debate much about that particular word choice.

What I wish to criticise is your choice of scene to criticise the ethics / actions of his protagonist (Richard) and still have him be potrayed as a "hero" (whatever your criteria is, although its clear to me Goodkind is using Richard as a "hero" in the sense that Richard is his mouth piece for his Randoid fanboyism).

[EDIT - to clarify I don't see Richard being unethical in defending himself, nor do I see how in defending yourself can a character be considered a "hero", or "anti-hero" or "unheroic". To put it in better perspective, a character who defends himself is just that. While there is nothing unethical about it, it doesn't compare to a character who defends the innocent and all that jazz - that character is the hero]

I think as has been stated numerous times, there is lots of scenes where Richard displays questionable morality, however I can't get worked up about a scene where he is trying to protect himself from being tortured. Because even a goddamn Randroid like Richard has the right to defend himself when tortured. And that includes even if his assailant is a child. And especially after he has run out of the less violent options (which in this case weren't any).

If a, I don’t know, a white supremacist kid armed with a knife, like um, oh I know this one here attacks police and the non lethal force available, such as capsicum spray fails, is it ethical for them to use lethal force? Because when the capsicum spray failed after more than one attempt that’s what they ended up doing. IIRC the Australian police were not charged with anything. Because they were just fucking defending themselves. As far as I can see, its not like Richard had a phaser he could set on stun.

You go into a spill about how evil torture is (which I agree), but when you mock Goodkind's writing to Stofsk, you conspicously ignore that he hit someone who was torturing him only a moment before. This seems contradictory to your earlier stance on torture and strikes me as an attempt to criticise Goodkind's writing without being honest about it. I trust you can figure out that a statement like "a woman kills her husband for calling her a slut" is less sympathetic than "a woman kills her husband in self defense after he struck her first and repeatedly and also called her a slut".

Going on, it seems believable that Richard will strike out when he suddenly finds he has the ability to retaliate against torture, and saying that the plot doesn't follow "organically" strikes me as weird (unless you were referring to later happenings in the book).

Now you can argue that Goodkind "rigged" the situation where his protagonist was in such a position where the evil doer just happens to be a child, and that there wasn't much Richard could do; (as I think we establish it wasn't like Richard could free himself and subdue Violet + Denna in a non lethal manner; nor have you explained how you think Richard should escape after just taking the torture; given that you say that he required "plot contrivances" in the first place to do it, yet you somehow expect him to do so without these plot contrivances).

Yes you could argue Goodkind rigged it, however it seems silly to argue against what happens next because a) Richard was defending himself b) it seems to flow naturally that someone who has just been tortured might retaliate against someone when they find they are suddenly able to. You can penalise Goodkind for "rigging" the premise, but you can't penalise him twice for simply having the characters follow through with that premise.

Now as to whether Goodkind rigged the premise, I am not particularly interested in arguing that part for the following reason. Because unless Goodkind outright states he specifically wanted a scene where his protagonist was to give a child the imperial smackdown; and he realised how unpalatable that would be so he deliberately set out to have "extenuating circumstances" like the child was engaging in torture and the hero was in no position to use minimal force, so yeah unless Goodkind outright states it, I don't know how you would prove that.

Personally I think Goodkind deliberate had a child engaging in torture because he likes to make his villains really really really evil. I say this because I notice this theme throughout his books, Darken's Rahl chief henchmen is not just a killer, he is also a paedophile, the Imperial Order rape and pillage and have the worse aspects of communist economic philosophy as well as that of religious irrationalism and Christian "guilt tripping" etc. You can argue all you like whether this is an effective writing tool, however unless Goodkind outright states why he decided to write that scene, you have as much evidence as my speculation. Only I admit this is just speculation on my part.

[Bakustra]

Well, it seems that we cannot actually argue satisfactorily, because I have no interest in in-universe arguments. I bring up Richard's actions not to condemn a fictional character, but to condemn the author that wrote him and them. So there is a fundamental disagreement here, and I don't know whether it can be resolved, since I am talking in terms of the story as a text. But there is one part of my argument that I would like to clarify. The scenario is contrived twice- Goodkind contrives to put Richard into said situation, and contrives again to get him out. That is why the scene is so terrible- because Goodkind contrives a moral dilemma, and then has to reach down, figuratively speaking, and extricate Richard from it by fiat.

[Elfdart]

For me, this is the money quote:

I gave up on Jordan in the eighth book of his series, and Terry Goodkind in the fourth.

Sounds like this person has "issues". If he doesn't like an author and finds the author's books a waste of time, why on earth is he reading several of them? I could see maybe reading one book from a bad writer and possibly giving the author a second chance and reading another. But four or eight times?

I once made the mistake of reading a John Updike novel, which I hated. The prospect of reading another -and that one being a sequel to the one I hated- sounds about as enticing as a stay in Guantanamo.

The only explanations I can think of are that this person is a masochist, or it's a guilty pleasure -like grown women pretending to be above the Twilight series while buying every single one and reading them over and over.

[Mr Bean]

Elfdart thing is the first two Wheel of Time books are quite readable and they seesaw to all hell after Book 2 as in Quality goes up and down chapter to chapter. Having read the entire series (Still not read Sanderson's latest book)

Robert Jordan is not a giant dive into shittyness. He has chapters that are quite entertaining reads. The first book for the world it builds and the tale it tells is interesting, I'd even call it good. The second book is more of the same but look at all the new pretty things and what's going to happen next with Rand and Matt and so on.

However the longer you read in a Jordan book you will either

A. Love everything (Rare)
B. Hate everything (Uncommon)
C. Find one plot line/story line you like (IE Matt storyline from Book 3 to Book 9 or 10) are great interesting reads and you only read the bits between because you kind of have to.

I for example could not give a shit about Perrin from Book 2 on, but I still have to read his sections in order to get grounding and because he occasionally is in more interesting parts of the books.

What happens to your quoted is where they hit a part of the book's where no character interests them and they just give up because who gives a shit.

*Edit
Without the Matt storyline I would have never gotten past book 4. With it however I keep reading because I want to find out what happens to happens next in this world. I could care less about Rand...

Until Sanderson took over of course, now Rand's going to town left and right and is the most interesting he's been since Book 4.

[Edi]

For me, this is the money quote:

I gave up on Jordan in the eighth book of his series, and Terry Goodkind in the fourth.

Sounds like this person has "issues". If he doesn't like an author and finds the author's books a waste of time, why on earth is he reading several of them? I could see maybe reading one book from a bad writer and possibly giving the author a second chance and reading another. But four or eight times?

I once made the mistake of reading a John Updike novel, which I hated. The prospect of reading another -and that one being a sequel to the one I hated- sounds about as enticing as a stay in Guantanamo.

The only explanations I can think of are that this person is a masochist, or it's a guilty pleasure -like grown women pretending to be above the Twilight series while buying every single one and reading them over and over.

Despite all their flaws, Goodkinds books were sort of readable and even had some perfectly decent background ideas early on, specifically the first three books. The fourth book had some of that as well, but after that it was shit piled on crap piled on excrement and going downhill from there. As well, the more disturbing stuff got really prominent in book #4 and only increased in prominence afterward.

[mr friendly guy]

There is also the possibility that an author could start of good / semi-promising / decent & worth a second chance and then degenerated later on as the $$$$ rolls in and the editorial insight most probably lessens as well. I found Jordon good initially, then at book 8 it seemed like barely anything moved. At that point I stopped buying the hard back copies and just read summaries from wiki or got it from the library and skimmed read it. Maybe I might check out the WoT now that Sanderson's taken over it. Surlethe complained about the differences between Sanderson's writing and Jordan's (ie less descriptive), but to me that seemed like a plus because Jordan tended to be over descriptive IMHO.

Now this eventually turning to crap might take several books, so its not surprising that a reviewer gives in the towel after say book 4.

To reiterate Edi, Goodkind is a fairly decent world builder despite his ordinary names, eg Westland any one? Or How about Midlands (although thats really several countries not one). His first book was so so, but I felt worth it to continue. I think he peaked at the second, most probably because he used concepts derived similar to Robert Jordan. And who wouldn't want to be locked up in a giant palace with lots of hot chicks for thousands of years while they teach you magic. Well any sane heterosexual male except Richard.

Then he started on using plot devices to create angst / false drama, because he wanted to explore that drama. Richard and Kahlan must be separated again in book 4. Why? Because the fucking spirits said so. No I am not kidding, this actually happened. Anyway, back to the rant, then his character metamorphed into a walking, talking advertisement for Ayn Rand and capitalism. The bad guys weren't just conquerors who rape and pillage, they were goddamn communists combined with Christian guilt and religious bigotry all rolled into one. You can see the signs earlier even in book one, that some of the bad guys were pseudo communists, however they were minor characters and you can put it off as simply adding depth to the minor characters. However when the major bad guys are the same, it becomes clear its just a venue for him to advertise his philosophy, and I fear that starts getting in the way of storytelling. But at least he can write engrossing battle scenes.

Now reading the wiki summaries, it seems that Goodkind really wrote himself into a corner. The bad guys outnumber the good guys so much, it really wasn't practical how the heroes would win without some DEM. Literally the size of the Imperial Order vs the countries allied with Richard was like a table vs a small stone (book 6). Granted the DEM he utilised was the same plot device the bad guy wanted in book one, so it wasn't totally pulled out of his arse. However for me that wouldn't really have saved it.

[Big Phil]

There is also the possibility that an author could start of good / semi-promising / decent & worth a second chance and then degenerated later on as the $$$$ rolls in and the editorial insight most probably lessens as well.

That's pretty much what I thought about (and still think about) David Eddings. The Belgariad was a pretty good series; interesting characters, fun story, and the absurdities were kept in the background. But then he starting writing the Mallorean, which was 95% the same story as the Belgariad... and then the Elenium, which was only three books, but 75% the same story as the Belgariad, and so on. Plus as he kept writing the lack of world building became self-evident, and he came to rely even more on stereotypes than he had before.

[Pelranius]

The last series, the Dreaming Gods or whatever, was completely unreadable.

Redemption of Althahus and Regina's Song weren't too bad though.